2006-05-19

Points of OrderMr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from conduct in the House yesterday. I am doing it at this point as I did not have the opportunity to raise the point yesterday because of an order the House was following with regard to the address by the Australian Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stood in the House and appeared to quote statements made by the member for Toronto—Danforth. 
Mr. Speaker, I am looking for some direction from you as to the best procedure, but I would suggest that what we require is a withdrawal of those comments by the parliamentary secretary and a direction that Hansard be corrected. I will leave that in your hands.
What occurred at that time was some debate on other points and then the accusation by the parliamentary secretary that the member for Toronto—Danforth had uttered certain words. The parliamentary secretary said that the member for Toronto—Danforth would do ill-will to Mr. Morgan, who was in a prospective appointment by the Prime Minister, as a result of certain comments that Mr. Morgan had made. The parliamentary secretary was alleging that he was quoting the member for Toronto—Danforth saying, with regard Mr. Morgan, that he was going to do him ill-will and then went on to say that the member for Toronto—Danforth would tear him to pieces. He used those types of words. He was alleging he was quoting the member for Toronto—Danforth.
The only tearing to pieces that we see here is the truth. In that regard, we also are seeing a pattern and I think there is the necessity of drawing it to the attention of the House. This is not the first time this has happened. We are seeing this type of smearing of members of Parliament on a regular basis by members from the government side. We had the situation with the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin putting words into the mouth of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. 
I am being very categorical. The member for Toronto—Danforth never spoke those words and that was a complete fabrication on the part of the parliamentary secretary. We are asking for a determination to be made on the basis of the facts and for the parliamentary secretary to withdraw the comments, to apologize and for Hansard to be corrected.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take the matter up with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and I will review what is in Hansard and what has been reported. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is very careful, analytical and sure of the comments that he makes in the House. 
Mr. Speaker, you have known the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for many years. I know he is a careful individual but I will take the matter up with him. We will have a look at it and get back to the House in due course.
The Speaker: I thank the government House leader for indicating that is the course that will be followed. I will take the matter under advisement and if there are further submissions on the matter I will hear them. 
Off the top of my head it sounds like a point of debate but I will check the words that were used to see if there was a problem. I have not seen the exchange that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has referred to but I will examine it and, after hearing further submissions, I will come back to the House. If there are no other submissions I will come back anyway.
I thank the hon. member for raising the point.
Budget Implementation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act. I will begin by quoting the member for Markham—Unionville who, as finance critic for the official opposition, raised three key points on the budget and the budget implementation act in his remarks. I absolutely think they are right on target.
He said that the budget was dishonest, it was visionless and it was mean-spirited. There is no jurisdiction, no industry and no segment of Canadian society where those points ring more true than for farmers and for rural Canada, and I will explain why.
Dishonest the budget was in that the Minister of Finance portrayed the budget as having more money for farmers, implying that there was more money than what previous governments had put in place. Actually, when we compare all commitments last year and this year, we find that the budget falls short even with its additional money of $1.5 billion, which we welcome by the way, but let us not say that it is more than it is. It is short by $255 million than the commitments of the previous government.
It is further dishonest in that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and even the Prime Minister have left the impression that the $755 million for the grains and oilseeds announced last November was money for this spring, but that is not the case at all. 
The previous finance minister booked that $755 million for the grains and oilseeds industry as an ad hoc program and it was booked for the grains and oilseeds industry for the losses it incurred in 2005. 
The new government through its budget has not put one dime of its own money toward the farm community as yet, although it is trying to leave the impression with the general public that it is doing something.
During the election and since that time, when there were 10,000 farmers on the Hill demanding immediate cash, when 21 farm organizations and farm leaders came together and made the point that they needed immediate cash for spring planting, members on the back bench over there indicated there would be immediate cash. The member for Essex even said so during the election but that is not what happened.
There is no immediate cash for spring planting coming from the government opposite, not a dime. Members laugh over on the other side. This is not a laughing matter.
 I know that some of the farmers who were on the Hill started to plant wheat but had their credit cut off. They could not put fertilizer on it. They decided because they had the seed to continue to plant the grain believing what the members opposite said and what the Government of Canada said, that there would be cash there and that in the spring they would be able to top dress that crop with fertilizer.
They know now, although the government is trying to portray it as otherwise, that there will be no cash because the government is not coming through with cash. It is difficult to believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food missed what farmers were saying. 
However, we must assume they heard what the member for Yorkton—Melville was saying when the headline in a news release on March 29, 2006, read, “Breitkreuz conveys farmers' distress to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food”. The news release quotes the member for Yorkton--Melville as telling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that, “We need to get money into the hands of our farmers right now”. 
Clearly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knew what the farming community was calling for and stated in the House on April 6 that they understood. However what a difference a year makes.
Last year, the then minister of agriculture announced $1 billion in March, taking money out of the surplus to put into farmers' hands so they could get a crop in the ground. Then we announced the $755 million in November. 
Let us go back to a year ago when the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, told the House:
 We are looking at severe problems...as we approach this year's planting and seeding. This problem has to be addressed now. 
 That is from Hansard of February 3, 2005.
That is what the Prime Minister said then. That is what he demanded of the previous government: that it put money into the farmers' pockets “now”, in the spring. Now this very same Prime Minister has the Conservatives' propaganda machine operating, there is no question about it. They have that machine working and well oiled up, because the Conservatives are leaving the impression they are doing something when there is not a single dime of cash for farmers this spring.
Worse yet, the situation according to Agriculture Canada's own numbers is that farm incomes have been reduced by a 16% further decline, so the need is even greater. In fact, we have called for a $1.6 billion immediate payment for spring to assist farmers to get a crop in the ground. That matches what the Saskatchewan agriculture minister is saying. It is a little less than what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is calling for, but that is really what is needed this spring. 
Worse yet, and it is hard to believe that it can get worse, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister would not answer questions in the House in a direct fashion and admit up front that there is indeed no money this spring. Farmers needed to be assured of support in a predictable and a bankable way and they did not get it from the government.
Still tied in with the budget, the Minister of Agriculture trumpeted his budgeted commitments in a press conference yesterday. The farm community understands what he said and did not say, but the general public does not. The general public is on side with the farm community. It wants something to be done for farmers, and because of the words missing from the government opposite, the public actually thinks something is being done when in fact it is not.
The Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday the $950 million that was part of the $1.5 billion in the budget, and we welcome that, but it does nothing for spring. It is moneys that are going into the CAIS program. If we recall correctly, those members opposite, even the Prime Minister himself, said the CAIS program was unacceptable. The Conservatives were going to can that program. They were going to cancel it. They were going to do away with it, saying that it was administratively difficult and did not get the money to farmers in a proper fashion. And this is the program that the government is going to put the $950 million out through?
Yes, there have to be changes to CAIS, but when will that $950 million get to farmers? They need the cash now. Farmers will be lucky to get the cash in September or November. Will that money deal with the problem of cash expenses this spring? Will that deal with the problem of assets and liability? No, it certainly will not.
As well, yesterday the minister announced the $100,000 interest-free cash advance. I welcome that program, but what he is doing is leaving the impression with the general public that there is $100,000 for farmers. I ask members if they have received those little envelopes in the mail from the credit card companies where they offer you $50,000 at a low interest rate, say, 6.6%. This is the same thing.
 This is not $100,000 coming from the Government of Canada. This is farmers borrowing their own money with a little bit of an interest break. One cannot borrow oneself out of debt. It cannot be done. The interest break is welcome, but that is not $100,000 for farmers from the Government of Canada. It is a little break on the interest. It is money that has to be paid back. It adds to the farmers' debt. What they needed was compensation for the losses of selling product into the market at low prices as a result of the international subsidies that are going on all around the world. 
Clearly the member for Markham—Unionville was right when he said as one of his key points that the budget was really dishonest. In agriculture, the government has clearly misrepresented what it is actually doing, because it is doing virtually nothing at all in the immediate term when farmers need the money the most.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange to be listening this morning to the member for Malpeque go through a litany of reasons why he thinks this government has not done anything. Why was this member not concerned when the Liberals were slashing agriculture programs under the former prime minister and when this same member voted against supporting Canadian farmers with emergency aid in 2001? Why did this member vote against standing up to U.S. protectionist policies on May 28, 2002? Why did this member vote against sending a delegation to the U.S. to try to get the border opened for ranchers? Why did this member vote against helping farmers hard hit by the mad cow crisis?
In less than 200 days our government has stepped forward, and I am very proud to say that our minister has provided for loan enhancements for these farmers to double the loan maximum for spring advances to $100,000 and to keep the loan interest free. All these things are coming forward to replace the CAIS program that is available now and to support farmers in a real way. The previous government had 13 years to do all the things that the member opposite is complaining about now. The member opposite should be supporting all the things that our government has put forward to help farmers. This government has done a lot.
Why is that member, after the record he has, not now supporting the good things for farmers so that farmers can carry on with their spring seeding and their land programs?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentions the spring seeding. That is the point. The government has not put 13¢ into farmers' pockets for assisting with spring seeding. That is the reality.
We are not disagreeing with many of the other programs that have been announced. In fact, those programs are along the lines that our government had proposed.
The fact of the matter is that the government has put less money in its budget than previously committed. The government has not met the demand for immediate cash for spring seeding that many Conservative members said would be met. The government has not met its obligations and promises. It certainly needs to be pointed out that the government has failed dismally in terms of getting immediate cash to farmers this spring.
While I am on my feet I should mention that the Minister of Transport even broke an agreement with the FRCC, which would have given the farmers some control over their destiny. The farmers would have had control over the hopper car fleet. Instead, what did the Minister of Transport do? He broke that agreement and turned the railway cars over to the railways in the same old way, with a little bit of a reduction in transport costs, so the railways can continue to gouge the farm community. That is not performance. That is going against what the party opposite said it would do for the farm community.
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member talked about a very important issue: agriculture and the financial crisis facing this sensitive economic sector.
There is also another serious crisis going on, this one among the unemployed, particularly among older workers. They need a new assistance program. Such a program once existed, but the former government cut it.
Can the member tell the House what he thinks of the Conservative government's inaction on this matter?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in the lack of action in terms of the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged is just what we expected with a basically neo-conservative agenda. That is what we are seeing. It is kind of hidden in some ways. The budget tries to hide some of those facts. When we look at the budget we see a number of tax breaks, but overall the fact of the matter is that with the dropping of the 15% on income tax and putting it at 15.5%, the government is in effect increasing taxes. 
 I do not think we should be surprised. This is the government's first budget. This will be the kindest budget that this particular government produces. In the next one, the Conservatives will get to their real agenda, which will be cutting and slashing the kinds of programs that mean something to the disadvantaged and the less well off in society, while they contribute to their corporate friends.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure for the first time in many years to have the opportunity on behalf of the Northwest Territories to raise a critical voice about a federal budget. My comments will focus on three areas: how the revenue is being generated, impacts on the north, and protection of the environment, or rather the lack thereof.
A long time in municipal politics has taught me to first look at the revenue sections of a budget. It is pretty clear where the Conservatives plan to get their money and that is out of the wallets of ordinary Canadians. A 2% reduction to the general corporate income tax rate, doing away with the federal capital tax and the elimination of the corporate surtax will do nothing to help more working families.
Corporations, unlike ordinary citizens, can pick and choose where they will file their taxes. For the past few years the provinces and territories have been competing with each other in a race to the bottom for the lowest corporate tax rates. The federal government should take the opportunity to raise revenues from corporations while the provinces are giving them all these breaks. 
Thanks to the Liberals, Canada already has a corporate tax rate well below the United States. Also, the corporations here have the benefit of public health care for their employees, so it seems unlikely that further reductions will do much more to attract corporations to this country.
The Conservative corporate tax breaks are nothing more than a crass political move to win favour with large corporations while those neo-cons turn their backs on ordinary Canadians. If the Prime Minister and his finance minister really wanted to help their constituents, they would have used the surplus found in the budget to deal with issues that matter to Canadians, such as health care, environmental improvement and post-secondary education.
Instead, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance decided to use the surplus contained in the budget to buy support from the largest corporations in Canada, in other words, to act like Liberals.
A further revenue concern I have with the budget is the cut to the GST. This ill thought out measure will also create turmoil in the way provincial sales taxes are dealt with. Once again, pressure will be on the less fortunate provinces with sales taxes to take up the tax room vacated by the GST cut.
As a northern MP, however, I must admit that the GST is a very unfair tax to people in remote communities across the country where the cost of living can run as high as 250% of that in southern Canada. The northern residents tax deduction was supposed to compensate for this, but the impact of this fixed amount of relief has been severely degraded by inflation over the 17 years since its inception.
With all the Prime Minister's talk about the importance of the north during the election, I had half expected to see a budget loaded with good things for the north. Apart from some urgently needed housing money, the Conservative budget does not provide anything that was not already promised by the Liberals.
First, there is reconfirmation of the $500 million fund to deal with the impacts to the Northwest Territories communities by the construction of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. However, it is unfortunate that the fund has been tied to the project going ahead. If we wait until the project is going ahead, it will be too late to begin preparing for the impacts of the project. Funding is needed now to do the planning and preparation for mitigating the impacts of the pipeline's construction. Trying to put together the structures needed to deal with these impacts while they are occurring will cause them to never be efficient and effective.
It was also interesting to read this passage in the budget:
 In order to mitigate the negative socio-economic costs of the project, and in light of the significant federal royalty revenues to be generated by the project, the Government of Canada will establish a $500-million fund. 
It is rare that a passage causes me to do a double take, but this one really caught me. Do the Conservatives mean that royalties that should be going to the Northwest Territories in the first place will be used to provide for this fund? If that is the case, then once again we are being manipulated with our own money. Or does this passage mean the Northwest Territories will not be seeing resource revenue sharing and devolution for a long time?
I ask that because at the extremely low royalty rates set in place by the Liberals, it will take some time to make up half a billion dollars. As well, this royalty scheme in place on federal lands, established decades ago when oil and gas were relatively low priced, front loads all the tax and royalty breaks. It will be many years after project start-up before there are any revenues to speak of.
Is this any way for the government to manage for northerners their resource base, which is so vital to the development of the region?
A lot more money will be required to prepare the pristine Mackenzie Valley with its numerous small communities for the impact of a $500 billion gas industry, of which the pipeline is only the first step. A massive public works infrastructure fund, which should be funded from potential royalties, is absolutely required. Investment in infrastructure up front may see the significant reductions in project development costs, thus returning money to the public coffers. 
On other northern funds in the budget, it was nice to see the finance minister understands the need for better housing in the north, but the approach the Conservatives have taken is, at best, a band-aid. A one time contribution of $50 million seems generous, but what has not been publicized is that the NWT will have to match this amount.
The budgets of the territories are already stretched thin due to federal cuts and arbitrary borrowing limits. Now these governments have to come up with additional funds to access the housing money. Just where exactly does the Minister of Finance expect the territorial governments to find the money? Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where they will find it; they will have to steal funding from other programs and services.
Finally, let me turn to how the budget deals with what is the most important issue facing all human beings, that of our changing climate. Dealing with Canada's commitment under Kyoto requires all of us to put conservation and energy efficiency first. The Conservatives, by name only, are firmly welded to the consumption bandwagon. The word “Kyoto” is not mentioned once in the budget. The words “greenhouse gas emissions” are only mentioned once and then only to give more funding to pulp and paper corporations to burn off their pollution to generate electricity. The words “climate change” appear only twice, both times to explain how funding to effective programs is being cut and shifted to a public transit tax benefit of dubious value.
This shows quite clearly that the government has no plan to deal with climate change. Without dollars, climate change plans announced by the government are nothing but window dressing. Without a major commitment to energy conservation, Canadians will suffer. 
Canadians overwhelmingly want leadership from the federal government on the environment. Instead, we have a government that has become so focused on its few priorities it cannot see past its own nose, and a budget that buys votes today while selling out our future.
The Conservative plan for climate change is not made in Canada; it is made in the oil patch. It is a plan for increasing consumption of energy, which will do nothing but increase greenhouse gas emissions. 
While a consumption based plan may be good for the Conservatives' buddies in the multinational oil companies, it is not good for the millions of Canadians who have to bear the full effect of climate change and the high cost of energy.
What was needed from the budget was a commitment to enhance and encourage the development of green energy sources. Instead of leaving huge tax breaks for the oil sands, the finance minister should have shifted the subsidies over to the green energy sector to encourage development there.
Once again, working Canadians are faced with a budget that places all the costs upon them, while those who could do more actually have an easier time.
The budget is nothing but a carny sideshow. It looks nice, it takes a poor family's money, but once we get past the elaborate facade, there is no substance.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP speaks a good line, but I would ask a question about that party's right to speak, or its legitimacy, on matters such as aboriginals, child care, social housing, all the things which the NDP purportedly supports when in fact by prematurely bringing down the former government, the NDP caused those things not to happen. 
For example, had the government lasted longer, the child care agreements would have been implemented more fully. We would have had more progress and more achievements in that area. It would have been more difficult to end that plan, whatever the outcome of the election. The same can be said for aboriginals and social housing. 
Why is it that the NDP was willing to sacrifice the interests of child care, sacrifice the interests of aboriginals and sacrifice the interests of all of those low income, vulnerable Canadians that I agree were really damaged by the budget? Why was the NDP willing to sacrifice the interests of all those people simply to get 10 more seats in the House of Commons?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I do not really see much difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to fiscal policy. While the Liberals were in power, we saw the corporate tax rate drop from 28% down to 21%. The Conservatives are going to put it down another couple of percentage points. This is giving up money.
There was a very interesting discussion about this in the newspaper a while back. An economist pointed out that this is costing our system an incredible amount of money right now and that money is not being reinvested by the corporations,. The corporate tax cuts that we have seen over the years have degraded the ability of government to provide the kinds of services that my hon. colleague across the way spoke so highly of.
I think we were all ready to see a change of government. It is a minority government situation, just like the last time. We have seen that there are votes again. We are dealing with a Conservative government that really has a fiscal policy similar to the one the Liberals had before. 
The NDP is the only party that has really different answers for Canadians. That is why I was very happy to see the election happen when it did. Canadians will work with the results of that election.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about the budget. It is really important that Canadians take a precise look at the budget in the areas of what a former leader of the NDP used to call corporate welfare, and he had another adjective which I will not quote at this point. It is important because Canadians want to know the value for money argument. If large corporations are going to be given tax breaks and tax cuts, Canadians want to know where that money is going. They want to follow the money.
One of the concerns I heard expressed by economists is that the money that is going to corporate tax cuts is not going to be reinvested wisely and that it is going to go into excess profits. It is not targeted.
What kind of investments do we need to see from corporations and how might we get them to do that, if they are not going to be doing it in the manner that the Liberals provided and now the Conservatives have provided in their manner? How do we get good investment and reinvestment in our capital, for instance in terms of gas and oil, to make sure it is not dirty energy and that it is not going to harm our environment?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, my position and the position of this party is that we need to do away with the tax breaks that were instituted for the oil and gas industry, especially the oil sands in 1995 with the Liberal government under a previous leader, whom I will not mention, along with the Alberta government. Oil was $12 a barrel and it is $70 a barrel now. Those companies can stand on their own two feet. Why are we continuing to support them when there are perfectly valid green energy companies that could be providing great employment, great opportunities in Canada and need this kind of subsidy?
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all colleagues in the House today would agree that it would be somewhat of an understatement to say that this was an extremely interesting week in this chamber for a number of reasons. None more relevant was the fact that we were graced with the presence of our Olympians and our Paralympians on Monday past. These individuals are a great collection of wonderful Canadians, our best and most committed. It was a pleasure having them here so we could show our appreciation for their efforts on behalf of all Canadians. 
This was followed by a reception hosted by the minister responsible for sports. During the reception the Prime Minister spoke about his respect for the athletes and the fact that they understood the importance of hard work, commitment and sacrifice. That is why they are the best in the country and quite often the best in the world. They understand the importance of these attributes.
I could not help but think that the words somehow rang hollow coming from the Prime Minister in light of what he put forward to the House and the country in his budget. All Canadians remember the hardships and understand fully the difficult situations they faced through the mid-nineties. Tough decisions and sacrifices were made by all Canadians, so that the Liberal government could write the fiscal picture for this country. It was a committed effort done by the previous government and it created a great deal of hardship in many sectors. However, it was necessary and I believe Canadians understood it was necessary, and they were willing to sacrifice the short term pain for the long term gain.
We had to balance the books and create a surplus, so that the Government of Canada could then reinvest in programs important to all Canadians. We made significant reinvestment in health care and in our military. Through all sectors of federal responsibility, we were able to make those reinvestments. Furthermore, Canadians showed patience. 
The Prime Minister does not understand that this is a time when investments should be made. It is time for Canadians to realize the benefits of the tough days they went through and the tough decisions and sacrifices they made. Instead, he put forward a budget that squanders a tremendous opportunity. Good things could have been done through this budget, but the Prime Minister has missed the opportunity and missed it poorly. 
The budget is truly political in nature. It offers a great deal of short term excitement. I think it would be best termed a retail budget because a lot of fancy things, a lot of sexy things, have been put in the window. It is going to take a certain amount of time before Canadians realize that this budget is really just a facade. A member of the NDP indicated that what we see is not what we are going to get. This is going to play out more as we go down the road. 
I began my comments regarding our Olympians and Paralympians who were with us on Monday. 
When I look at some of the upfront tax deductions, the tax credit for sport registration looks impressive: a $500 tax deduction for one's son or daughter joining a sport. When it comes time to fill out one's income tax return, though, that will equate to $80. Will $80 make the difference as to whether or not a family enrolls their children in a sports program? I do not think so. That will not have any type of impact at all.
Previous members that spoke had indicated their disappointment in this budget and the approach that the government has taken on child care. Certainly, this budget falls far short in those areas as well.
Had this government followed through with some of its campaign promises and had this government, and I will go back to the sports credit again, identified in this budget the 1% of the health care budget that was supposed to be attributed to sport and fitness in this country, then I believe the benefactors would have been the young people of this country, the people who pay the price, who understand what commitment can bring, what hard work can bring, and what sacrifice can bring. It would have allowed the next generation to be inspired and to strive to attain those same types of heights as the athletes who graced us with their presence here in this House.
This budget falls far short. An $80 tax deduction for registering one's son or daughter is almost embarrassing.
We see the same thing with education. We know that the next great challenge here is allowing young Canadians access to post-secondary education.
Certainly, the proposal that was put forward by our party during the last election was one that, I think, made great sense: 50% of the tuition in the first year, up to $3,000, and the same in the last year. There was an incentive there to, first, pursue a post-secondary education and second, to complete that post-secondary education. That was real money that would be going to young people in this country to pursue an education and to make a greater contribution to not just our economy but, really, to our society. Those would have been real dollars. 
However, what do we get from this government? We got a tax deduction on books. What is it going to be when it plays out? Perhaps a young student might get one free book each year. It is far too little and certainly falls far short of the mark.
There is going to be a realization, there is going to be a reality here, and that reality check will come next year when Canadians sit down to do their income tax returns and they find that the tax credits and the tax deductions that are obviously the theme of this budget just do not make it, just come far too short.
We have seen in the House this week, through the motion that was put to this House on Wednesday on Afghanistan, the threat by the Prime Minister that had that motion not gone through he was going to the polls within a year. We have seen our Minister of Public Safety talk about the gun registry and holding things over for a year.
I think this government wants to go to the polls before Canadians sit down and do their income tax returns next year. Put that on the record and now it is in Hansard. This government knows that Canadians will see through this veil of investment and they will see that there is nothing in this budget for them. Is it going to improve their lot in life? Is it going to close the gap between the rich and the poor? 
They will realize at that time that this government has failed them and that this budget has failed them. I know that the Prime Minister understands that they will realize this, and that is why we will be at the polls before income tax time next year.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is part of parliamentary rhetoric to hear the kinds of comments that we heard from members opposite this morning, but just to be clear, is the member opposite saying that a cut in GST will not help Canadians? Is the member opposite saying that $1200 for every child under six years of age going to every family in Canada will not help Canadian families?
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is whether Canadians will use those deductions. Yes, they will use those deductions. Is a cheese sandwich going to feed a starving nation? I do not think so. 
I believe the purpose of government, through the budget, is to elicit positive outcomes and make positive impacts. I will use the $80 tax deduction. I have three boys that take part in sports. Will it have any type of impact on whether I register my children in sports programs? It will have absolutely none. 
Is being able to deduct the tax on books going to make a difference as to whether I am going to encourage my oldest to go to university next year? It will have none. There are Canadians who will look at the bottom line, when sitting down with their sons and daughters and making a conscious decision as to whether they will be able to afford post-secondary education. 
This was an opportunity for the government to invest in our young people. This was an opportunity to give them something that would encourage them to pursue post-secondary education and the government failed miserably on this account.
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what was said by my hard-working colleague from Cape Breton—Canso.
There are two things we can say about this budget. First, it is dumb and, second, it is mean. It is dumb because it invests in the wrong things. The challenge for Canada is productivity. The challenge for Canada is to educate its people. The challenge is the emerging giants of China and India. They are not our enemies but they are our competitors. 
We need to educate our children. The Liberals would have done that, particularly the lowest income children, if the economic update had been adopted in the fall. There would have been billions of dollars in direct assistance for low income Canadians, aboriginals and persons with disabilities, as well as expanding other scholarships.
My question is about the inequity of this budget, the meanness part, such as cutting the EnerGuide for low income houses and introducing a GST cut that disproportionately assists the rich. There are tax credits for education of $80 on tuition in my province, which is from $6,000 to $8,000 a year. The Conservatives' own brochure advertises this great cut, but for a family that makes $15,000, it will save, according to the government's own numbers, less than $100 a year in 2007 while families that make $150,000 a year will save over $1,200 a year. 
The Conservatives advertised the GST cut and the example they used is a $375,000 house. I would like to ask my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, does this budget even attempt to speak to the people of his riding or mine? How many in his riding live in $350,000 houses and how many make more than $150,000?
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, that was one aspect of the budget that really jumped off the page when I saw the $350,000 house. I know for some people in our urban centres a $350,000 house is not a strange thing, but one thing this misses is rural Canada. I have a coastal constituency. I probably have small streets in my riding that would not have $350,000 worth of real estate on them. 
That is the sad part. It is the people who live in those homes, good Canadians trying to raise families and kids, and contribute to this country that this budget leaves behind. That is who this budget totally misses the mark on and that is why I will not be supporting this budget.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the budget. There have been many comments made about missed opportunities and I want to look at a couple of those.
Before I do that, I want to take a couple of moments to talk about the philosophy behind the budget. Looking at it from a historical perspective, the budget is extremely interesting. In many ways it reminds me of the kind of strategy the Liberals used to take, and I go back as far as Marc Lalonde. There was a little for everyone, but in the end nothing for anyone. We have a lot of pronouncements about little things that might seem to be good on the surface, as many have mentioned, but when we look at the detail, there is little substance to what is delivered.
I refer back to the way that budgets used to be written. It is from a strategic, philosophical approach at odds. It is what is referred to by some political scientists as brokerage politics. It is broker this group, broker that group, be it regional, be it class-based, so the government can be seen as meeting the needs of everyone, but meeting the needs of no one in the end.
I will now go into more detail about what the budget does not do and the opportunities that were missed.
 The opportunities missed were on child care. I take great exception with some of my Liberal colleagues who have said that so much would have been done if they just had another couple of months. Let us be real about this. There were 13 years of missed opportunities. Many deathbed conversions were made up until the last election, but Canadians were tired of that. The trust had been broken and as a result voters told the Liberals what they thought.
We did not have a child care act in place. We had child care agreements. Yes, that was better than nothing, but let us be clear about what it was not. It was not permanent child care. They were child care acts that, as we have seen with the new government, were taken away with the stroke of a pen.
What we have in the Conservative budget is not a child care act nor is it comprehensive child care. It is income support. While no one would critique the need for income support, particularly for those who are most vulnerable, we have to acknowledge that this is not what Canadians wanted and it is not what they asked for with regard to child care.
I think even within the Conservative Party some members would have to acknowledge that their mandate was not on the issue of child care, and it is a minority mandate. The issue for the Conservative government, and why I believe it was elected, was a consensus that a trust had been broken with the previous government and it was time for a change. I have heard this on talk shows, from people in my community and I have read it in letters to the editor. If people did vote for the Conservative Party, it was not because of child care or the $1,200.
My leader has said time and time again that it is important not just to oppose but to propose. What should we propose instead of what has been delivered? We have said is the $1,200 should be there, but it should not be seen as child care. It should be seen, as we had proposed in the election, as an increase to the child tax benefit. My predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, was the member who proposed that we eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. We know the sad story and record on that issue.
What we do know is the child tax benefit was a good, sound policy. We should have increased the amount of that benefit by $1,200 to attack child poverty. This is not what the government has put forward. It has said that the $1,200 is for child care and that is it. 
The NDP has proposed that the government keep the $1,200 for the child tax benefit and do not tax it. Interestingly enough, the government is opening that up. We should ensure that we follow through with sound investments in child care. The NDP wants the government to bring forward a child care act, which will guarantee that no government can take away child care. It is so important and so crucial to our youngest citizens.
What would we have in the child care act? Beyond child care agreements with the provinces, we would have an agreement that would set out not only financial support, but standards as well.
The Speaker: Reluctantly, I have to interrupt the hon. member's speech. He will have four minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when the debate resumes on the bill later this day.
We will now proceed to statements by members.

Statements By Members
HockeyvilleMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say I am proud to announce that the town of Hanover has been selected as one of 25 finalists and is heading into the third of five stages in the CBC Kraft Hockeyville 2006 contest. The contest began on March 19, with 450 communities competing. Hanover is one of five communities advancing from the central region of the country. 
Hockeyville is about community spirt and hockey. The town of Hanover's support and commitment to Hockeyville is very evident. Hockey is an undeniable part of Canada. Hanover's spirit for hockey and Hockeyville is contagious. Given the chance, this community and, indeed, the entire surrounding area will show their fellow Canadians what it means to have hockey spirit.
If successful, Hanover will win $50,000 for a new arena, $10,000 in hockey equipment and a chance to host an NHL exhibition game.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Hanover Buck-aneers for submitting the bid. I would like to wish the town of Hanover good luck because Hanover is Hockeyville.
Bowen IslandMr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize a specific area of my riding, Bowen Island. As the first ever sitting member of Parliament to visit Bowen Island, I am proud to represent its interests.
 Bowen Island is an idyllic setting that attracts many artists, sculptures, painters, writers and musicians. In fact, Bowen Island was recently identified as the fourth most artistic community in all of Canada. 
Bowen Island, with its abundance of arts and community groups, is in desperate need of a multi-faceted, multi-use stage for all events. This facility would provide a home for a variety of events, including performing arts, literary reading and film screening.
 Sharing culture brings richness to any society and encourages deep community spirit, not to mention job creation and economic spin-offs of increased tourism.
I wish to recognize the hard work of the Bowen Island Arts Council, which is dedicated to representing and coordinating the creative efforts and programs of all cultural groups on Bowen Island. I wish to thank it for its dedication to promoting the vibrant art community in our riding.
I also wish to welcome Monte and Gayle Rolston from Madeira Park who are in Ottawa today.
Noëlla Tremblay CarreauMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak here today in order to celebrate the outstanding work of Mrs. Noëlla Tremblay Carreau who was honoured by the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec on May 15, 2006. 
This extraordinary woman, who works at the CHSLD in Gatineau, received the Florence award for community involvement for her contribution to the development and humanization of perinatal care in the hospital environment and for her commitment to the family.
Ten nurses from across Quebec received awards during the gala evening marking the end of nurses week, which was held May 7 to 13, 2006.
Mrs. Tremblay Carreau, your dedication brings honour to our community, which makes us even more proud of your involvement. The Bloc Québécois and everyone in Gatineau would like to thank you for your commitment to the well-being of the people of your community.
Human RightsMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is set to release a report, an assessment of Canada's progress on implementing our human rights commitments. The report is widely expected to raise serious concerns about our own record and make recommendations for improvement. 
Many of those recommendations we will have heard before, recommendations like implementing transparent and accountable procedures for reporting to the Canadian people on our own human rights record; recommendations like the need to address the concerns of aboriginal communities, concerns like the alarming rate of violence and discrimination against aboriginal women and how we must, after 15 years, settle the Lubicon Cree land dispute; recommendations to find ways to address security concerns in a way that do not cause further injustice and increased insecurity through human rights violations, no more security certificates, no more deporting Canadians to countries where there is a serious risk of torture.
It is time for the Canadian government to take its commitments on the international stage seriously. It is time to comply.
TradeMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the governments of Alberta and British Columbia for signing a groundbreaking agreement to eliminate barriers to trade, investment and labour mobility between their two provinces. The agreement will give businesses and workers in both provinces seamless access to a larger range of opportunities across all sectors including energy, transportation, labour mobility, business registration and government procurement.
Unfortunately, even though Canada has signed free trade agreements with other countries and despite the fact that we have an agreement on internal trade from 1994, we still do not have free trade within our borders. This is simply wrong and needs to be addressed.
That is why I also commend the Minister of Finance for raising the issue of the economic union in his recent budget and recognizing that governments will have to work together better, especially with respect to mobility and trade, employment for immigrants, capital markets and tax harmonization.
I support the finance minister in his efforts in this area and I encourage all provinces to follow the example set by Alberta and British Columbia.
AgricultureMr. Gary Merasty (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when does the government plan to start treating the crisis in farm income as an immediate crisis, one that needs action today?
First, farmers demanded direct, immediate assistance for spring seeding but what did they get? Nothing. All the government is offering is double-talk, claiming that money delivered in the fall is somehow money put into the hands of farmers today and encouraging farmers to borrow themselves out of debt by offering no other immediate assistance.
Producers deserve a real plan and real action, not a whole lot of nothing. The hon. member for Malpeque saw through this ruse and I join him in demanding the government to stop this deception and to start acting.
Second, there is nothing on delivering a national renewable fuel strategy, nothing on the opportunities that ethanol and biodiesel offer farmers and forestry. 
I call upon the government to support farmers across Canada.
AfghanistanMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the opposition during last Wednesday night's vote on our mission in Afghanistan is shocking. Opposition members are on record as supporting our troops and yet they played politics and voted against the government instead of voting for our troops.
The member for Vancouver South said:
 We support the mission, absolutely, and in unqualified fashion...If you had a vote in Parliament, I have no doubt in my mind that there would be absolutely overwhelming support. 
 Yet he voted against our troops.
The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca said:
 The courageous Canadians who are in this dangerous theatre must have our unequivocal and steely support....We cannot afford to give them anything less. 
Yet he voted against our troops.
The member for Markham--Unionville said:
 ...it is right that Canada step up to the plate and do its part. Canada is committed to Afghanistan. 
This is not an easy mission and these are not easy decisions. I applaud those opposition members who were steadfast in their support, put politics aside and did the right thing, voting for our mission and for our troops.
Clothing and Textile IndustryMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since being elected, the government has not yet done anything for the clothing and textile industry, even though the needs facing these sectors are just as dire as when the current government was in opposition. 
Last week, the failure of the Conservatives to take action once again cost approximately 50 jobs, and what is more, in a riding that they represent, Mégantic—L'Érable.
The closing of Confection Lapierre in Saint-Ludger represents another blow for the Mégantic region, which was already reeling from the closing of the Canadelle factory last March.
Conservative members and ministers have spouted plenty of rhetoric about these industries, yet they do nothing. The government must commit to saving the clothing and textile industry.
The Bloc Québécois has proposed several measures, including POWA, to help this vulnerable manufacturing sector. The federal government should use it as a model to save thousands of jobs in our regions.
Child CareMr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for Canada's new universal child care plan.
As I know from my own constituency, the child care option that is great for one family does not necessarily work for another. That is why our plan is founded on respect for parents' ability to choose what is right for their children. 
By providing each Canadian family with $1,200 a year for each child under the age of six, Canada's universal child care benefit will support their freedom of choice in child care.
I am proud of our plan that incorporates the Canadian values of respect for diversity and universality.
The Liberals spent 13 long years promising a national child care program and never actually delivered. Our government's plan is a balanced approach that supports all families, irrespective of what form of child care they choose. We made a promise and we have delivered.
AfghanistanHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Wednesday's rush debate on Canada's mission in Afghanistan highlighted once again the disdain and disrespect the Prime Minister has for the institution of Parliament. Even before the debate was concluded, he was announcing that he would only respect the results of that vote if we agreed with him.
Why would Canadians believe that their members of Parliament can protect their interests if the Prime Minister keeps implying that MPs do not count?
If we want our citizens to be fully engaged in the political process, we must create a culture that respects and encourages that engagement, and that culture is determined by the attitude from the very top. If the Prime Minister cannot demonstrate respect for this institution, why should Canadians?
I call upon the Prime Minister to apologize for his behaviour and to make a commitment that starting today he will work to create a culture of respect toward and within the institution of Parliament.
Holy Cross High SchoolMrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been said, “Without music, life would be a mistake”, which is why I take great pleasure in welcoming Saskatoon's Holy Cross High School to the nation's capital as the students compete in the 34th annual MusicFest.
Holy Cross has grown from its modest beginnings in borrowed classrooms nearly half a century ago into one of the most well-respected educational institutions.
Continuing this tradition is a gifted group of 170 students which make up the two bands and a choir here today. 
The grades 11 and 12 bands are under the direction of John McGettigan. The combined grades 11 and 12 choir is lead by directors Leanne Baldwin and Kristen Dorgen-Lee.
All of us in Saskatoon wish Holy Cross students great success this weekend and we thank Holy Cross for making us proud. 
As the City of Saskatoon marks its 100th birthday next Friday, May 26, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Saskatoon as it shines even brighter with these students on its 100th birthday.
HealthPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, this year, 153,000 Canadians will learn that they have cancer. While lifestyle changes can help to reduce some risks of cancer, we have a responsibility to eliminate the causes of cancer before they start.
Yesterday, I joined with Prevent Cancer Now, a coalition of environmental, health, labour and social justice advocates, to urge the government to commit to making primary cancer prevention a national health priority.
A significant portion of the $260 million committed to the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control must be dedicated to cancer prevention. In the words of Prevent Cancer Now:
 We are no longer prepared to grant that cancer has become a recognized disease of childhood; that our women friends are expected to stoically sport scarves and turbans while awaiting an uncertain fate from breast cancer; that young men are increasingly diagnosed with testicular cancer; and that workers in many occupations are dying in order to make a living. 

Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyMichael Savage: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday in the House I asked the Minister of ACOA a question. His response to the question included a reference to me “going cap in hand, begging for ACOA projects in my riding”.
In a news article today he goes further by suggesting that I should not “bite the hand that feeds”, and that it will not help to get projects approved in my riding.
I have a number of responsibilities in this Parliament, like all MPs, being critic for ACOA among them. However, my number one job is to represent the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and to advocate on their behalf, including organizations and businesses that interact with ACOA.
It is disgraceful to suggest that my constituents will get less attention because I am doing my job in Ottawa: asking appropriate questions of the minister.
In opposition, the member loved to dish out criticism but in government he reacts with anger and threats. That is not my style, nor will it be, but I will not allow my constituents to be victims of the minister's rants. He should apologize to the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and retract his ill-advised comments.
Gaétan LordMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last month in my riding, Gaétan Lord won the jury prize at the Allostars Gala for his contribution as founding president of Canada's first centre for “allosexual” or queer youth, which offers support to gays, lesbians and young people who are unsure about their sexual orientation. 
He began working to understand these young people, who often suffer and hide themselves, when his own son told him he was gay. He immediately accepted his son's sexual orientation and has supported him through every stage of his life.
Mr. Lord was aware of this problem in society, so he dedicated himself to this humanitarian cause and really put his heart into it, volunteering over 1,000 hours to get the house up and running in Terrebonne.
The members of the Bloc Québécois join me in congratulating Mr. Lord for the openness and acceptance he has shown homosexual youth.
Order of Merit of the Police ForcesHon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate an outstanding member of the Charlottetown Police Department.
Corporal Mike Quinn is one of the newest members of the Canadian Order of Merit of the Police Forces.
Corporal Quinn received his award this morning from Governor General Michaëlle Jean at a special ceremony at Rideau Hall.
The Order of Merit of the Police Forces honours a career of exceptional service and outstanding merit displayed by the men and women of the Canadian Police Services and recognizes their commitment to this country.
Corporal Quinn is a highly respected member of the City of Charlottetown Police Force and is well-known for his passion and his dedication to his community. He is the first municipal police officer in Prince Edward Island to have been successfully nominated to receive this very prestigious award.
On behalf of the residents of Charlottetown, I congratulate Corporal Quinn, his wife, Charlene, and family. It is a real honour for the community to have a member of the Charlottetown Police Department receive this recognition.
AfghanistanMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not just Liberal members who backtracked on their commitment to our troops in Afghanistan. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore originally said:
 The answer is yes, I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does my party.... 
Then, in an odd twist of logic, he said that he would abstain from the vote because he supported our troops. Finally, he showed up and voted against our troops.
The member for Halifax said:
 It's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes, we should, we need to be, we need to be in for the long haul. 
She too voted against our troops.
The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said:
 Well, I think supporting the troops... I do agree with that... we think we should have a debate... So we still like to have a vote, and we'll vote in favour.' 
Yet the member turned around and voted against our troops.
I find it sad that opposition members would play politics with this mission.
Not long ago many opposition members pledged full support for our troops. On Wednesday they flip-flopped and chose to vote against the government instead. Our military men and women deserve better.

Oral Questions
Foreign AffairsHon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked and appalled to hear reports today that indicate Iran is about to pass a law requiring non-Muslims to wear coloured badges identifying their religious beliefs. Jews would have to sew yellow strips of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges. This kind of state-run bigotry is both disgusting and frightening to Canadians and all citizens of the world who believe in tolerance and religious freedom.
What steps is the government taking to protest the actions of this rogue state?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is obviously deeply concerned about these reports. We have been unable at this point to independently verify the reports. Our officials are working diligently in Iran to establish independent verification of these deeply troubling reports. 
We can say that should these reports turn out to be true, and we all hope they are not, this government will condemn in the strongest terms possible this kind of revisiting of the darkest period of the last century. If this turns out to be true, it is something that the entire civilized world must condemn.
Auditor General's ReportKaren Redman: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the legislative committee studying Bill C-2, government members grilled the Information Commissioner. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice suggested the Information Commissioner had deliberately leaked his report in an effort to embarrass the Prime Minister. Talk about shooting the messenger, this is one more example of the government's pattern of absolute contempt for officers of Parliament.
As the government is so clearly concerned about leaks, can the Prime Minister inform the House as to the status of the internal investigation into the leak of the Auditor General's report by his office?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would say the member asked a good question except for the suggestion that such a leak may have come from within the government. We have not been able to establish that. I can tell the hon. member that the Prime Minister takes this matter very seriously and has made very direct inquiries within the government to establish whether or not the apparent leak of the Auditor General's report with respect to the firearms registry originated from the government.
Yesterday members of the government expressed their concern as well, about the leak of a report of another officer of Parliament, the Information Commissioner, who did ultimately take responsibility for the leak of his report prematurely.
The EnvironmentKaren Redman: That is one week and no results, Mr. Speaker.
During the last Parliament, the parliamentary secretary repeatedly called on the government to respect the will of the House and to act on resolutions passed by its members. He once famously said, “We live in a parliamentary democracy--not an elected dictatorship”.
Yesterday Prime Minister Howard committed Australia to meeting its Kyoto targets. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is in government, does he intend to put his money where his mouth was? Will the government respect this week's vote of the House calling for Canada to meet its Kyoto obligations?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this member and this government always put our money where our mouth is. That is why we have delivered on our key election commitments. That is why in 100 days we have managed to achieve more of our election commitments than the Liberal government did in 13 years.
As it relates to Kyoto, the difference is that the Liberals talked for 13 years and did not deliver. What they did deliver was a 26% increase in greenhouse gas emissions over 1997 when they signed the accord. They missed their Kyoto targets by 35%. This government is not going to replay that record of failure. Instead, we are going to act with a concrete plan to reduce emissions and clean up Canadian air for our health.
Firearms RegistryHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the lack of respect the Conservatives have for Canadians and their Parliament is getting worse. An increasing number of people are speaking out against the abolition of the gun registry without a vote in this House: the Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec, the Fraternité des policiers et des policières de Montréal, the Association pour la Santé Publique du Québec, the Centre de prévention du suicide 02, and the Coalition for Gun Control.
Will the government listen to these agencies, which are saying that the registry saves lives?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this week the Auditor General proved that the gun registry was a colossal failure. We support effective control of guns, which is why we will keep the handgun registry, the permit system for gun owners, and training for owners and extend prison sentences for crimes committed with guns. Perhaps that is why the Liberal member for Outremont said, “The gun registry is a disaster, an outrageous scandal that cost $1.2 billion”. It was a Liberal member who said that.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, let us not twist the Auditor General's words. She said the problems with the registry had been corrected.
The Conservatives' lack of respect also extends to the governments of Quebec and Ontario. Despite the representations of the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Minister of Public Safety continues his blind crusade to abolish the gun registry.
When his counterparts from Quebec and Ontario come here to Ottawa to oppose the abolition of the registry, will the Minister of Public Safety listen to them or—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the gun registry is a federal matter and not a provincial one. Nonetheless, the Minister of Public Safety will work very closely with his provincial counterparts, including the ministers from Quebec and Ontario. 
I find it quite odd that a Liberal member is asking a question about this registry, which is a colossal failure and cost over a billion dollars. According to the hon. member for Outremont, this money should be spent on the health of Canadians, and the police—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government that the Auditor General said, and I quote, “We did not examine the effectiveness of the Canadian Firearms Program or its social implications”.The governments of Quebec and Ontario, police associations and victims' rights groups, not to mention 76% of Quebeckers, want the firearms registry to be maintained.
Is the Minister of Public Safety planning to abandon his dogmatic approach and, along with the vast majority of the population, recognize the usefulness of the firearms registry, and—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as taxpayers, Quebeckers—like all Canadians—do not want their money wasted. The firearms registry was a huge waste of money, a waste of over $1 billion dollars, according to the Auditor General.
That is why the government will focus on fighting organized crime and gun related crime. This is why we will keep the handgun registry and increase prison terms for such crimes.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the registry helps saves lives, and that is what matters.
Police forces consult the registry over 6,500 times a day, and they were the first to say that the registry is an essential tool for ensuring public safety.
The minister says he wants to improve safety on city streets, so why is he so dead set against a registry that, as everyone knows, helps meet this goal? 
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this government's priority is to protect our fellow citizens against crime, against violent crime, and against gun related crime. 
The point of our public safety policy is not really to go after duck hunters who use long guns. That is why, instead of spending $1 billion on this registry, we will introduce a real policy against crimes committed with guns, especially handguns.
Kyoto ProtocolMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has run out of arguments and now feels the need to invent them. Yesterday, for example, she stated that Japan was adopting a position on the Kyoto protocol in line with Canada's. In fact, Japan is saying that a more aggressive stand must be taken on climate change without delay.
Does the minister realize that with such statements she is undermining not only her own credibility but also that of her government both here, in Canada, and abroad?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada, like many other countries that are involved in the Kyoto talks, has taken the position that there needs to be an assessment of the Kyoto protocol at this point, particularly in light of the fact that under the Liberals we were 35% above target. 
I would like the hon. member to know that just yesterday one of the most well respected scientists in Quebec, Dr. Claude Villeneuve, actually said that the plan the Liberals had was doomed to fail, and all experts knew this, and he looks forward to seeing what our party is bringing forward.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the minister praises the Asia-Pacific partnership. However, the experts say that this agreement is based solely on goodwill, that it does not establish any constraints, deadlines or financial framework.
Will the minister recognize, as do the experts, that in the end this agreement is nothing but a sham.
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might like to think about what she said in the question, because Japan is actually one of the key players in the Asia-Pacific partnership, a partnership that she just called an impostor. Some of the largest players on climate change are part of the Asia-Pacific partnership. Right now Canada is focused on our own domestic plan, but yes, countries such as Japan, Australia and the United States have asked Canada to consider participating.
Firearms RegistryJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the government's gun registry scheme is making an end run around democracy and this Parliament. It does subvert democracy, but I think more important at this point is that it is going to cost millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars, because the government is intent on going ahead outside of the democratic process.
 The Conservatives will not bring the legislation forward because they know that if they bring the legislation forward, and they know they have to, they know they are probably going to lose it in the House. They are not going to get the approval of the House.
Will the government table the legislation immediately and will it commit today to abide by the result of the vote on that legislation?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that a member of the NDP is complaining about the concrete steps taken by this government to stop the waste represented by the long gun registry, which involved over $1 billion to pursue law-abiding hunters and firearms owners. 
He should perhaps consult his own member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who said that “the gun registry has not been a positive solution for Canadians” and that “it has faltered as a tool to stop the use of guns for criminal ends. Meanwhile, it has unfairly targeted people who use firearms lawfully”.
Does he agree with his colleague?
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I get to ask the questions at this point.
 The member is missing the point. If the government goes ahead with its scheme now and loses that vote somewhere down the road, it is going to be repeating the same type of mismanagement and the mistakes that the Liberal government made with the program. It is going to spend a lot of money making the changes and then it will have to put it all back.
Again, will the government today commit to abide by the vote when it finally gets the legislation before the House?
Jason Kenney: What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is committing to abide by our political engagement to the Canadian people, part of our electoral mandate, to stop the waste and abuse of hundreds of millions of tax dollars that should have gone to fighting crime on our streets.
The real question that Canadians are asking, particularly rural Canadians, is why the NDP continues to support the wasteful Liberal billion dollar firearms boondoggle when even the member for Winnipeg Centre says that half the NDP caucus is going to vote to abolish it.
Foreign AffairsHon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, but he must also recognize that this is Hitler's shadow stalking the earth, that this is the same regime in Iran that has denied the Holocaust and has state sponsored persecution of members of the Baha'i faith. Quite frankly, words are not enough.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if, at the very least, he has called in the Iranian ambassador to Canada to express Canada's disgust over these actions in Iran.
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the question, but to pre-emptively call in somebody and express dismay over an allegation would be nothing short of irresponsible. The Islamic fashion legislation has not become law and we are unaware of the specific content of the draft legislation. 
Surely, as has been expressed by the parliamentary secretary, we would condemn in the strongest possible terms if in fact this were to happen, but we will be following this issue very closely and responding appropriately in a measured way.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada's response must be focused, clear, strong and unequivocal. I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will he bring the matter up at the United Nations Security Council? If this comes to pass, will he then call for an international ban on the purchase of Iranian oil?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, if in fact this allegation and this legislation are verified, then certainly we will respond appropriately. Certainly we will take all measures through the United Nations and through other diplomatic means to express Canada's dismay, along with our international partners.
It would be nothing short of irresponsible to act precipitously, to do as the hon. member is suggesting, to condemn in the strongest possible terms, to follow all diplomatic means, based on one single solitary factor and that is to verify that it is true. The member knows that has to be the case.
AgricultureWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the agriculture minister gave three confusing timeframes for his illusionary money for farmers. In the House he said:
 We are putting $950 million today into farmers' hands. 

[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  More, more!
The Speaker: Order. I know hon. members want to hear more, but we have to have some order so we can hear.
The hon. member for Malpeque.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the minister of course was not factual. In the press conference he said the money would be out in two months. In the press release he said they would not see the money until fall.
The minister knows there is no money today. There is no cash this spring. Will the minister apologize to the House for how he misspoke yesterday? Will the minister admit today that there is no cash this spring?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the balance of the past 13 years did the Liberal Party prove to us that it provided Canadian farmers with a short- and long-term vision for agriculture? We are obliged to say no.
The member for Malpeque is quite mistaken. Our government ordered the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to start working immediately with farm groups that administer the improved advance payment programs, to double the maximum amount of interest-free loans to $100,000 per Canadian farmer. This does not require any amendments to the act and goes immediately to 1.2—
The Speaker: The honourable member for Malpeque.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance or any member of the House believe that farmers can borrow themselves out of debt?
That is what the Minister of Agriculture is doing. He is telling farmers he will give them a little break on interest if they borrow more money, go further into debt. Yesterday's new farm plan was no cash for spring and borrow more money. This does not deal with the farm crisis. It violates your commitment of immediate cash for spring.
Will the minister tell us how many farmers will not qualify for this money?
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member knows he must address his remarks through the Chair.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we should ask the government that was in power at the time and voted against emergency aid of $400 million in 2001 for Canadian farm families. In addition, it voted against assistance for farmers hit hard by mad cow disease.
The Liberals had 13 years to help Canadian farmers and they failed. Our government has made a commitment to farmers. That is why we will ensure that this record payment is made to Canadian farmers this year, and in record time.
Public Servants Disclosure ActMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government wants to rush the passing of its accountability bill on the grounds that it wants to protect whistleblowers in the public service. The President of the Treasury Board has the means to do this: Bill C-11, which went through the entire legislative process and even received royal assent.
What is stopping the government from enacting this legislation immediately, which would prevent the committee from being completely bulldozed and would give it enough time to do its job properly?
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite clear. The previous government implemented a bill at the last minute during the last Parliament that is not strong enough to protect our public servants.
This government, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, has introduced Bill C-2, which will better protect our public servants. That is the bill that must be implemented to protect public servants.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, unions representing more than 80,000 members of the public service want to be protected immediately under Bill C-11.
Why is the President of the Treasury Board not following through and immediately giving the protection wanted by so many public servants by enacting the whistleblowers legislation, which his party even supported last fall?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague from Quebec that the largest union that represents public servants said that Bill C-11 was not so strong. The good news for public servants is that now there is a real government that will truly support the public servants of this country, much more than the previous government did.
I would also say that it is very important to have Bill C-2 in place. We must work harder to be certain that these measures contained in our accountability bill are passed by this House of Commons. I hope we can count on the Bloc Québécois' support.
AgricultureMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food gave a few more details about the breakdown of a portion of the assistance announced in the recent budget. In reply to a question I asked him last week, and again yesterday in front of reporters, the minister promised that Quebec would receive its fair share of this financial assistance.
Can the minister assure us that Quebec will receive its fair share of the amount announced in the budget, and can he tell us just how much Quebec will receive?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Yesterday, a press release from the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec had this to say: 
 Farmers in Quebec and the rest of Canada will be able to breathe a bit easier in the coming months thanks to the new enhanced spring credit advance program announced yesterday by the federal agriculture minister. 
This was the reaction of Laurent Pellerin, president of the UPA, who recognizes that Quebec farmers' expectations regarding the cash advance program have largely been met.
Yesterday's reports that the federal government's change to the CAIS program and extension of the--
The Speaker: Order, please. Time is up. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary answered again, but he still has not answered my question about how much Quebec will receive. I have some quotes for him as well. The Union des producteurs agricoles deplores the fact that the measures announced by Ottawa do not specifically target the hardest hit sectors, such as grains.
Will the minister promise to meet right away with the minister of agriculture of Quebec, who has been requesting a meeting, to determine how Quebec's share can be redistributed immediately to the sectors with the greatest need for income security? I am waiting for an answer.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, in the past five years, has the Bloc Québécois ever voted for a single law to help farm producers in Quebec and Canada? No. 
We have announced an enhanced advance program that will double the amount of interest-free loans to $100,000 per farmer, regardless of where the farmer lives. 
 We are addressing the failures of the previous Liberal CAIS program by adjusting the inventory valuations back to 2003, 2004 and 2005, which will allow us to— 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for York West has the floor.
Federal-Provincial RelationsHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Our Liberal government had signed a $6.9 billion deal with the Government of Ontario for important infrastructure needs such as public transit, affordable housing, post-secondary education and immigration.
The Minister of Finance continues to say that he will honour this commitment. The question for the Minister of Finance is when? When is the Minister of Finance going to cut the cheque?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government made a very clear promise to support the Canada-Ontario agreement. We saw for 13 long years successive governments, successive premiers, trying to get a little fairness for the province of Ontario from the previous government. That was a long battle. 
This government will fully honour the Ontario-Quebec, the Canada-Ontario agreement.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I said Canada-Ontario, not Canada-Quebec. That is what I am talking about this morning; more double talk, more phony commitments. Clearly Ontario is not a priority for the government.
Is the government simply planning to stall until the next provincial election in the hopes that the government's Conservative buddy will get elected?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I will say that takes some nerve for the member opposite who served as a former minister of immigration and shortchanged the people and immigrants to the province of Ontario year after year. On a per capita basis, immigrants coming to the province of Ontario to establish a new life and establish a new beginning were shortchanged by that member when she was a minister in the previous government. 
This government will deliver real change. We will honour the agreement and we will support immigrants to the province of Ontario to ensure that they are well settled and contribute to Canadian life.
Human Resources and Social DevelopmentMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. Perhaps the minister should visit our regions in order to understand the realities facing workers in agriculture, forestry, construction and tourism. She has no sympathy for them and looks down on them. The only thing these citizens want is to be able to continue providing for their families. If the minister had a little compassion for these people, she would immediately announce an extension of the pilot projects.
My job as an elected member of Parliament is to defend the citizens in my riding. Does the minister truly believe that defending the public is a tactic to buy votes?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as members well know, I too come from an area that is largely dependent upon agriculture and tourism. Those are my top areas of interest from an economic point of view from home.
That is why whatever programs we go forward with are not going to apply just to specific areas, but will be applied in a nationwide context that will be in the best interests of all Canadians.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. The minister says, yes, defend your citizens and you will buy their votes.
This party is beginning to show its true colours. It is enough to recall the comments made the current Prime Minister relatively recently when he said that Atlantic Canadians are a defeatist people. 
The minister should apologize to everyone in the Atlantic provinces. There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to ensure a decent future. The reason for an extension of the pilot projects would be just that.
I asked a very simple question and I would like a clear answer. Will the minister show the slightest compassion for the seasonal workers in my riding?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, this government intends to show compassion for workers in all ridings across this country. That is why we are reviewing the results of the pilot project. I stress it is a pilot project. That means it is a test to make sure that the program works and that it is cost effective for all Canadian taxpayers, that it delivers what it is supposed to. That is what we are going to ensure our programs do. That is why we are going to make sure we bring in something that works.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what else does the Auditor General's report reveal? It reveals the Liberal's mismanagement and waste.
In 2002, the lease for the Montreal offices of the Economic Development Agency of Canada was up for renewal. The Minister followed the usual practice and signed a new lease in another building. The former secretary of state responsible for the agency complained to the current member for Wascana, who agreed to renew the old lease in a more expensive building, resulting in two leases for a single agency.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Public Works tell us the reasons for this interference?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have bad news for the hon. member and for taxpayers.
 In the last Liberal government, as a result of one letter from one Liberal minister across the table to another, the lease at Place Victoria was renewed. Professionals at the Department of Public Works did their job, but the Liberals ignored their counsel and wasted $4.6 million leasing two buildings. They leased two buildings when only one in fact was needed.
The Conservative government and the Department of Public Works will always get value for taxpayer dollars because we have learned, unlike the Liberals, how not to waste money.
Human RightsWayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the United Nations will release a report on Canada's human rights record. In recent years Canada has done more to ignore its human rights commitments than it has done to honour them. It is time to end the Liberal legacy of inaction and start complying.
What has the government done to conform with the recommendations that will be made on Monday and what measures has it put in place to ensure an open, transparent and publicly accountable process for coordinating the implementation and compliance of human rights in Canada?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this party and this government support human rights. We support human rights in Canada and we support human rights throughout the world.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the member's words, but we heard the same thing from the Liberals before and did not get any action then.
On a related matter, four years ago, after many years of debate, the UN General Assembly adopted a new treaty to prevent and eradicate torture and ill-treatment worldwide. Sixteen countries have signed on to that protocol. Sadly, Canada is not one of them. 
The protocol needs 20 signatories before it comes into force. Will the minister stand today and make a commitment to Canadians that we will sign the optional protocol on torture? Will the government take the step from words to action and take a leading role in preventing torture--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been very strong in asserting human rights values, both at the United Nations and around the world. We will always continue an abiding interest in ensuring that our human rights are on par with other countries. The United Nations is the best forum in which this debate is to take place. There is significant reform activity going on at the United Nations in which Canada has shown a long and abiding interest.
This type of activity is going to elevate and Canada is going to continue to play the leading role, which it has always played, on issues pertaining to human rights.
The EnvironmentMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for another week the COP meeting will continue in Bonn without its chair. Instead of fulfilling international obligations, the Minister of the Environment chooses to recite absurd lines from an American right wing pollster. Now it looks like she and the Prime Minister are set to announce that Canada will sign on to Asia-Pacific 6. In Bonn the minister's nine minute speech lacked specifics and was an abdication of leadership in the fight against global warming.
After weeks of slashing successful programs, is this the only action Canada will take on global warming, following a United States public relations scheme at the expense of Kyoto?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the critic for the environment for the Liberal Party of Canada voted against Kyoto and said things like the job losses from Kyoto ratification would affect all regions of Canada. He went on to say that an agreement was written on the back of an airplane napkin on the way to Kyoto.
Let me go on to relate what Rex Murphy said on the CBC the other day. He stated:
 Canada touted its signature on the accord as being in itself a great Boy Scout badge of international and environmental do-good-ism. 
 We will not pay for our badges; we will earn them.
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke earlier today about assessments. At the end of question period today, I will table a report, an assessment, from the Climate Institute, which projects that greenhouse gas emissions from AP6 countries will more than double by 2050. It concludes that not nearly enough will be achieved by the AP6 toward meeting the global warming challenge.
Why is making the Prime Minister's friends happy being traded off for killing Kyoto and sacrificing our international reputation?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not understand what is happening on the international stage. It is exactly because the major players on climate change and global warming are in the Asia-Pacific partnership. It is why Canada would like to participate to ensure we help those countries reduce their emissions.
Natural ResourcesHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, environmental groups in Nova Scotia and across the country are angry. They continue to call on the government to reverse its decision to cancel a real made in Canada approach to climate change. They say the EnerGuide for houses program has provided real, measurable, cost effective successes and the new low income program had every promise of doing the same.
We know the finance minister would sooner build prisons than houses, but why is his government axing EnerGuide and forcing low income Canadians to fend for themselves?
Mr. Christian Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government was elected to provide responsible management. It will take the time to separate what is effective from what is not. 
The EnerGuide program put only 50¢ in the taxpayer's pocket. Canadians do not want this; they want effectiveness. That is what we will give Canadians.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, that is an unwarranted statement. Not only was the EnerGuide program good for the environment and 10 times more effective than a tax credit for public transit users, but the program created hundreds of jobs and expanded business opportunities for Canadians. 
The Minister of Natural Resources voted for the EnerGuide program. Why is he flip-flopping like his Prime Minister?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, there was no action on energy efficiency and climate change in the past 13 years. An evaluation process is under way to improve this situation and take effective action for Canadians. We are getting rid of ineffectiveness and introducing effective programs. That is what needs to be done.
Port FacilitiesLouise Thibault: Mr. Speaker, the port facilities in Rimouski East are still the property of Transport Canada. Unfortunately—and the department knows it—they are not able to withstand the devastating impact of high tides on the boats that are moored there. What is more, last Tuesday evening the CNM Évolution ferry, which provides a link between Rimouski and Forestville, suffered several thousands of dollars in damages.
Does the minister intend to take action, to assume his responsibilities and meet the ongoing needs of the many users of this wharf by ensuring that the necessary work is done as soon as possible?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question, which is not only extremely interesting, but also extremely important. I have been provided with information on these incidents. I have asked officials in my department to look into the matter. We will develop a number of options shortly that will, I hope, meet the needs of her constituents and everyone in the region.
TaxationMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 4, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion presented by the Conservatives asking the government to repeal the notice of assessment whereby it wrongly refused to refund GST to school boards in Quebec and Ontario.
Now that it is in power, what is the Conservative government waiting for to abide by the Tax Court of Canada's decision and repay the Quebec and Ontario school boards the $18 million it owes them?
Hon. Carol Skelton (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as with all issues, we are currently looking at them and reviewing everything in the department.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wrote to the territorial premiers about the need for a strategy for northern development, stating, “an effective environmental plan, balancing ecological protection with economic prosperity”.
Communities in the Mackenzie Valley are working to mitigate the impact of development by protecting key wildlife sites. How does the government plan to deliver on the commitments to complete the system of protected areas and land use plans in the Mackenzie Valley?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government have committed to the north not only with $300 million for affordable housing. We have also committed to a $500 million socio-economic fund to support the people of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
FisheriesLarry Miller: Mr. Speaker, the sea lamprey eel are a fish native to the coastal regions of both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, but they have entered the Great Lakes and have contributed greatly to the decline of whitefish and lake trout.
The lamprey eel program is confident of meeting its objective of reducing spawning lamprey by 2010 and will enable the natural restoration of native species. The program has worked well in the past. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us the government's financial plan for ensuring the continuation of this great program?
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for the work he has done on this file over the last two or three years.
When we talk about fisheries, we talk about the Atlantic, the Pacific and the north. Quite often we forget we have a major fishery in the Great Lakes. One of the enemies is the invasive species such as the sea lamprey.
We continue to work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the joint United States-Canadian group, to combat the problem. It has done a great job. This year we will spend over $8 million on it.
Natural ResourcesDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, EnerGuide is a program that makes economic sense. It saves homeowners, taxpayers and governments money. It reduces energy costs, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Recently the Conservatives have been suggesting that 50% of the EnerGuide spending goes to administration.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us if the government considers funding for homeowner energy audits as administration in its calculation?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the minister is clear on the EnerGuide program. What is unacceptable is that only 50¢ of every dollar goes into the taxpayer's pocket, and that is what must be changed. We are conducting evaluations so that we can set up effective programs. That is what Canadians asked for.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense. Homeowners who get energy audits done is not administration. It is a feature of the program. Energy audits lead to renovations being done which stimulate the economy and which allows the federal government to recoup its investment. It is progressive because it helps low income families. The program should not be killed; it should be expanded. 
We are getting the run around from the minister. Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House why the government is cooking the books on the EnerGuide?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, what makes no sense is that only 50¢ of every dollar goes into the taxpayer's pocket. This has to be evaluated. That is the government's mandate. It will take the time to do things properly instead of rushing to bring in programs that are ineffective.
Heritage CanadaHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has repeatedly indicated its intention to review the mandate of the CBC. This week the heritage committee asked to see and comment on the terms of reference of any such review.
We all know her boss, the Prime Minister, is not keen on parliamentary democracy. However, will the Minister of Heritage seize the opportunity and seek the input of her fellow parliamentarians in the review of the mandate of CBC, one of our most important cultural institutions?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the CBC is important to Canada. Because it has not been kept up to date and it is threatened by new technologies, we believe a mandate review is called for.
Consequently, we have just received the motion. I will give it due consideration. In a democracy we will use every instrument we can to ensure that it has fulsome discussion.
Veterans AffairsJeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, our military men and women fought for our freedom and many lost their lives doing so. This year veterans of the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment are planning to replace a memorial at Dieppe, France.
Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell us what the government is doing to ensure our veterans complete this project?
Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for Essex for his help with the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment. It has done good work.
The Government of Canada will be assisting. DND will help in the transport of that monument to Dieppe. We will also be assisting simply because of the presentation the member made to me, to which the Prime Minister was made privy. Therefore, we will be assisting those veterans in their travel needs as well.
 I want to commend the member also for reaching out to opposition members, particularly from Essex, Windsor and Tecumseh, for their help on this file. 
The Speaker: That concludes question period for today. The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.
PrivilegeJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to request consideration by the Speaker of this case of privilege involving the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the attack that he made on the credibility of the member for Toronto--Danforth.
Since the initial discussion that we had on this earlier today, I have had confirmation from a member of our caucus that the conversation that the parliamentary secretary alleges to have taken place, and that he claims he overheard between that member and one of the other members of our caucus, in fact never took place. 
She was not with the member for Toronto--Danforth at the time the conversation was alleged to have taken place, so the parliamentary secretary could not have overheard it.
This is damaging to the reputation of the member for Toronto--Danforth. As I mentioned earlier this morning, this continues the pattern of members of the government making statements about what other people said and then it turning out not to be true. It directly affects the ability of the member for Toronto--Danforth to do his job as a member of Parliament.
I am asking that the Chair take this under consideration. Mr. Speaker, if you are prepared to find that there has been a potential breach of privilege, I will move the necessary motion.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this is clearly not in any fashion a point of privilege.
Yesterday, during an exchange in question period in response to a question from the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto--Danforth, I reported some remarks that I had heard while I was walking into the main entrance of West Block this past Tuesday on my way to the meeting of the committee which was interviewing Mr. Gwyn Morgan with respect to his nomination for the public appointments commission.
At that time, just as I was entering the building, at precisely 9 a.m., I distinctly heard the leader of the NDP speaking to a colleague, not the member for Parkdale--High Park who was already in the committee. I was as usual running a couple of minutes late. 
I distinctly heard the hon. leader of the NDP say that the hon. member for Parkdale--High Park was going to go through his speech and “Tear him apart”. He was not whispering. It was a clear, audible public statement he was making to a colleague on the way into the building. 
I reported this remark because I believed it was contextual in terms of the NDP's approach to Mr. Morgan's nomination twice at committee and I did so again yesterday in the House. 
I stand by the veracity of what I heard. I am sorry that the leader of the NDP and his colleague from Windsor object to the fact that I have reported what I clearly heard. I do not retract what I believe to be absolutely truthful and I do not believe this is a matter of privilege.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh raised this matter this morning as a point of order. In my opinion, it may be a point of order. In my view, it is not a question of privilege because it is not his privileges that are involved in this dispute. 
If it were a question of privilege at all, it would clearly be one that would involve the member for Toronto--Danforth and no one else. 
I do not know how the hon. member can say his privileges as a member have been in any way damaged by a statement that the parliamentary secretary made about somebody else. I am having trouble with it. I have no difficulty in dismissing this as a question of privilege.
 I have already indicated that I will take the point of order that he raised this morning under advisement. We have now heard further submissions on this matter. The government House leader indicated he might want to say something, and if he does, I will hear him in due course. 
At the moment, the matter will stay under advisement. I can now at least add the submissions of the parliamentary secretary and of course those of the member for Windsor--Tecumseh which I will add to those that he has already given me on the point of order that was raised earlier this day and which I have under advisement. We will leave it at that point for the time being.
I have another notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Beaches--East York.
Points of OrderHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct an unintentional error in my question to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in the House yesterday. It was my intention to say that the previous Liberal government committed to invest $1 billion over five years to develop a national caregiver agenda. Inadvertently, I said that the commitment was to invest $5 billion over five years. In no way did I intend to mislead members of the House and I apologize for the resulting confusion.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week during question period, you will recall that I brought up the matter of the Prime Minister quoting from a document that he was holding at the time in response to a question from a member of the official opposition. I asked, according to the rules of the House, that the document that the Prime Minister was quoting from be tabled.
 Mr. Speaker, I ask that you look into the matter because those of us on this side of the House have clearly identified the document to be, indeed, a cabinet document. I wonder if we could get a resolution to that matter.
The Speaker: As the hon. member knows, the Chair took the point under advisement, has it there, and will get back to the House, I am sure, in due course. 
The hon. member for Malpeque is rising on a point of order.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, during question period today, I gave the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the opportunity to apologize for how he misspoke in the House yesterday because what he said in Hansard was “$950 million today”. That $950 million is not there today. 
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might ask the Conservatives to clarify the record.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member for Malpeque knows that these things are matters of debate. He will be able to ask a question the week after next, or whenever we are next sitting, and maybe clarify the matter to his own satisfaction. However, it is not for the Chair to ask members to clarify their statements in the House, entertaining as that might be for the Chair to do. It is not something I would want to get into.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
[Interjection]
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Further to a question I asked of the Minister of the Environment today, I wish to table the report from the Climate Institute on the Asia-Pacific Partnership.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Brant have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Committees of the HouseMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the seventh report later this day.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on the situation involving His Excellency Abdou Diouf, Secretary General of the International Organization of La Francophonie.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, five reports from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
The first report concerns funding to equality seeking organizations. The second report refers to gender based analysis. The third report concerns funding for women's program. The fourth report deals with pay equity. The fifth report concerns maternity and parental benefits for self-employed workers.
In accordance with Standing Order 109 the committee is requesting that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these reports as soon as possible.
Canada Evidence ActMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (interpretation of numerical dates).
Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is one which I have introduced even before the year 2000 because I saw the impending doom of stating dates in numeric form and the ambiguity that this causes now in these years. 
 My wife went away and I cooked myself some macaroni and cheese. The date was wrong. The date was not given in the right format and I ate some rotten food. That is a true story. 
The bill will correct that very disastrous situation.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
National Capital ActPaul Dewar:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park).
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce my first private member's bill. It is an act to amend the National Capital Act. This is actually an issue that my predecessor, the member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Broadbent, had put forward in the House. I wish to follow up on his good work.
The bill would seek to establish boundaries around Gatineau Park and provide a mechanism for changes to the boundaries around Gatineau Park. It is to recognize that one of the purposes of the National Capital Commission is to acquire privately owned land, so that real properties or provincial properties situated in Gatineau Park remain in the public context.
I am delighted to have the support of my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That notwithstanding the order adopted Tuesday, April 25, 2006, public safety and national security be the committee for the purposes of section 145 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 2001. 

The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. member:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Speaker:  Agreed on division.
(Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented earlier today in the House be concurred in.
The Speaker:  Does the hon. member for Cambridge have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
PetitionsMichael Savage: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting again a petition on the issue of child care. People in my community are very concerned about the government's plan to kill the national child care plan.
I want to thank the Edward Jost Children's Centre for compiling these and sending them in. The petitioners of Nova Scotia call upon the Prime Minister to honour the early learning and child care agreement in principle and to commit to fund it for a full five years. I thank them for their help.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to submit a petition signed by many people across the country. The petitioners call upon Parliament and the government to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to their situation.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House.
The first petition is from my constituents in Kennedy, Langbank and Wawota area calling upon Parliament to retain section 241 of the Criminal Code without changes, in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide, whether by personal action or the Internet.
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I have another series of petitions from Estevan and area, asking Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, in what I am sure will be a complete thrill for all of us, Question No. 3 will be answered today.
Wayne Easter:  With regard to any and all contracts awarded by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and any other federal department to the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI), in the years 2004 and 2005: (a) what were the amounts of the contracts, identified by specific contract and amount of contract; (b) what were the terms of the contracts; and (c) what papers, presentations and submissions were submitted by CAPI to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food or any other federal department as a result of any contract?
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
a) Contracts for CAPI: There were no contracts awarded to the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, CAPI, by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food or any other federal department in 2004 and 2005. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, funded CAPI activities with grants and contributions through the Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri Food, ACAAF, and Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development, CARD, programs. 
b) Terms of the grants and contributions to CAPI: In April 2004, to facilitate the establishment of the institute, the department provided a $2 million grant from the CARD program for setup and operating costs.
In January 2005, CAPI applied for and received a $676,000 contribution from the ACAAF program to conduct independent research and assessment of the causes of the rapid decline in farm income in Canada and to present the findings at a national forum to a broad range of industry stakeholders and policy researchers.
CAPI received an ACAAF grant of $400,000 to host a national conference entitled “Working Towards a New Direction for the Agri-Food Sector” in an effort to identify strategic future directions for the sector. The forum was held February 13-14, 2006
 c) Papers, presentations and submissions: CAPI did not receive any other funding from other federal departments. As per the terms and conditions of the contribution agreement, the institute was not required to deliver or seek approval for the publication of the reports from AAFC or any other government department and these reports are publicly available on their own website: www.capi-icpa.ca.
Recipients of ACAAF funding are obliged to use funds as per their funding agreement. CAPI fulfilled its objectives through the following activities:
Under the project funded in January 2005, entitled “Understanding Factors Affecting Current and Future Farm Income Prospects”, CAPI produced a series of independent commissioned research papers that sought to develop a “fuller understanding of the factors affecting the competitiveness of Canada’s agriculture and agri-food supply chain”. In addition, a farm income forum was held in June 2005 to share the findings of these papers with a broad group of stakeholders with a view to start discussions on longer term approaches to farm income problems.
The conference on “New Directions” was held in February 2006 and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food participated as a speaker. CAPI has made the papers and presentations of this conference available on their website.
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2006[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House agrees I would ask that the House revert to motions for just a moment so I can ask for concurrence once again on my motion.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is there such agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, when I left off in my comments about the budget I was referring to the concerns this party has and many Canadians have about the missed opportunity in child care.
I will now speak to the issues around education, particularly around those who are presently in post-secondary education and those who are looking for the promise of opportunity of post-secondary education.
In my first year of university my tuition level was $900 and the most I ever paid was $1,200. Today, sadly, students are incurring debt at an average of $25,000 to $30,000 and we hear stories of people walking out of university with student debts of $60,000 and more.
I am certainly not the oldest member of the House of Commons but neither am I the youngest, but I hesitate to believe that the intention of the government was to create more barriers for students and young people in the future. 
I also want to underscore the fact that most members of Parliament who went to university or community college did not incur the kind of debt that young people are incurring now and the student debt that we will be placing on young people in the future. If we look at the student debt being incurred by young people today it is absolutely abysmal. All we have seen from the government is to give a couple of crumbs in the way of support for textbooks. Clearly, that is not enough.
This is not an ideological discussion. This is a pocketbook issue. It is an issue of parents wanting their sons or daughters to have opportunities and discovering that the opportunities for post-secondary education are not there. The opportunity is for more debt and this budget continues that legacy. It does not open up opportunities for young people.
In last spring's budget, we made some headway in making changes to provide relief for young people. The Conservative government took the money that was bookmarked for helping young people with their tuition and it put it into the capital investment for universities. I am sure everyone would agree that is an important priority because universities do need money and support for capital costs and for research and development, but when a government takes the money that was to go to young people and students and puts it into the capital investments of universities, it is on the wrong track.
In my time remaining I want to underline the fact that this was yet again a missed opportunity for the poor. I have not heard the issues of the poor and those who are most vulnerable talked about at all. In fact, what we see is that the opportunities and the supports that are being provided for in this budget will create more of a chasm between those who have and those who have not. This will be a legacy that we all have to answer for. I would hope that the government acknowledges that there will be further erosion of opportunity for those people who are the most vulnerable in our society.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today and offer my comments on the recent budget speech.
Preparing a budget, whether it is for a household or a nation, is a delicate balancing act of many worthwhile competing priorities. As a member of the Liberal Party, I have consistently advocated for support for Canadian families while promoting fiscal responsibility in building a solid economic foundation for the future.
The Conservative government's first federal budget presented on May 2 fails to provide a sound economic vision for the future and it also brings Canada dangerously close to being back in deficit. I find the budget to be irresponsible and short-sighted and I will not support it in the House.
Let me be clear. I support affordable tax cuts. I was proud to serve in a government that instigated Canada's strong economic growth with eight consecutive balanced budgets, $61.4 billion shaved off the debt and more than $100 billion in tax cuts, which was a historic record for the country. It was through fiscal prudence and responsible spending of Liberal governments that Canada eliminated its deficit and went on to build one of the strongest economies in the world.
The Conservative government's plan to cut the GST will benefit Canada's wealthiest while leaving lower income Canadians with very little benefit. An average Canadian two-earner income family with children currently earns about $72,000 a year while 48% of Canadian families earn less than $40,000 a year. Canadians earning less than $45,000 a year would have to spend 100% of their disposable income on taxable goods and services in order to save $320. This does not include the money that families would have spent on groceries, prescription drugs, rent or tuition and education.
I cannot in good conscience support a budget where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Lower income families work hard. They make sacrifices to make ends meet and income tax reduction puts money in their pockets. Income tax reductions give them a chance to change their financial situation so they too can flourish as part of our Canadian economy.
Canada as a whole has the potential to flourish in the 21st century global economy but we need to invest in our people and in our brainpower. Waterloo region has become synonymous with technology, innovation and education. The technology triangle contributes to the local prosperity and to job growth.
It is a huge disappointment that the Conservative government is unwilling to partner in research and development as evidenced in its recent budget. Its budget contains virtually nothing to help Canada go forward and to put us at the front of competitiveness, knowledge and innovation.
In my region of Waterloo, we are proud to be the home of several of our country's finest post-secondary education institutions. We have a thriving research and development and technology sector. Our region has reaped the rewards of an economy that is driven by ideas, innovation and technology.
The federal government must be a partner in this growth through investments in research and development. Tomorrow's jobs can be found in today's technologies. We cannot put our nation's future prosperity at risk by abandoning these economic issues.
My constituency of Kitchener Centre has seen a significant decline in employment in the manufacturing sector. These good paying jobs are hard to replace in my riding. I implore the government to revisit its plan. I implore it to develop a strategy for investment in research and development. We are a nation of ideas. Let us support our innovators and our researchers by enabling these ideas to get to the marketplace.
All residents of southwestern Ontario are acutely aware of the challenges of climate change, extreme heat waves contributing to air pollution and smog days. These pose serious health risks to the residents of the area.
Given the reality of climate change and the profound effect it will have, not only on our lives but on the lives of future generations, Canada needs a federal government that will be willing to address the impact of climate change and what that impact will have on our health and well-being.
The Conservative government has chosen to abolish several effective climate change programs and it is set to pull out of the Kyoto accord. A responsible government would recognize climate change as the crisis it truly is and it would increase, not slash, funding to mitigate its impact. The detrimental effects of climate change are expected to increase over time. This in turn will hurt future generations of Canadians.
I cannot support a budget that does not do everything possible to ensure the health and well-being of our children and our grandchildren. 
It was a proud day for me when Canada committed to the Kyoto protocol. Good climate change policy contributes to a better quality of life and better health for Canadians today and for future generations. Canadians overwhelmingly support actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, they expect all sectors of our economy, governments, industry and consumers, to be part of that process.
All Canadians got a wake-up call last summer on the quality of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples when we saw the evacuation of the Kashechewan reserve. The Liberal Party responded to that crisis with a historic landmark agreement between first ministers and aboriginal leaders in Kelowna, British Columbia. At that meeting, the government of the day committed to over $5 billion over five years to close the gap between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in such significant areas as education, health, housing and economic opportunities. 
The Conservative government has forsaken this agreement. Not only has it forsaken it but it has provided a mere $200 million to address these very important aboriginal issues.
The Conservative government has disappointed Canadians with a budget that falls short of addressing the real needs of families. It has cut programs essential to the prosperity of our country. It has canceled a national child care plan. In one year it will back away from provincial agreements that our government had forged with all provincial governments. It is cutting virtually all the funding to environmental programs like EnerGuide and REEP, programs which, from the evidence I have from groups in my riding, are effective and have not only taken greenhouse gas emissions out of the air but have saved home owners on average $750 a year.
The Conservative government has raised taxes of lower and middle income families. It truly does have a trickle down mentality, whether it comes to social programs or the economy. It intends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not ensuring that all Canadians can thrive with the prosperity that Canada now enjoys.
Canadians deserve much better than the first Conservative budget and the things that have been omitted. For all those reasons, I will not be supporting the budget.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I must say to my friend across the aisle that I have a very high regard for her and therefore I know she says these things with sincerity, but I still have to ask this question.
 When she says that we raised the taxes for lower and middle income Canadians, I wonder if she would not agree that although in fact where the Liberals had promised a particular rate, that rate had not hit that point, and that we are at a difference of one-half of one per cent on the lowest rate. I wonder if she would not take into account the $1,000 employment allowance. I wonder if she would not take into account the trades benefits that are in our plan. 
I wonder if she would not take into account the $1,200 that is payable to a parent of children under six years of age, which is payable entirely without tax if that person is earning no income. In other words, taking a look at that plus the GST rollback for people who are in the lowest possible range of income, who are just barely getting by to a point of not even being able to pay tax, can she not understand that in fact they are significantly better off as a result of the Conservative budget?
My second question is with respect to Kelowna. I wonder how she feels about the fact that on the Kelowna agreement there was absolutely no discussion and no part in that agreement for 50% of the aboriginal Canadians, that 50% of aboriginal Canadians who are not on reserve, those urban people who are in an urban situation. There was absolutely no place for that. It was a very wonderfully crafted show, but it did not really have the substance. We are going to be working on the substance.
[Interjection]
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is a hard-working member of Parliament too, but I disagree. I would tell him that the Conservative budget lowers the rate of how much non-taxable money one can earn, so it has lowered the non-taxable income rate by $400 per annum. I would tell him that the 15% reduction the Liberal government had brought will go up to 15.5%. I think that is a real disservice to low income families.
I would also say that I think the $1,200 should not be paraded as a child care system at all. I am a mother of four children and I recognize how important it is for young families to have a choice. This will not create additional child care spots and that is what we hear parents want. They want to have some kind of variety. 
The Liberal government introduced the national child tax benefit, which was something that helped all families with children. While the $1,200 that is given to families may be tax free if one is below the level at which one would pay income tax, the Conservative government did take away the supplementary benefit that went to the poorest of families with very young children so that they could afford formula and diapers. 
So I would tell the member, no, I do not believe families are better off. I believe the government is affording families less choice. I come to this place being a clear advocate of child care, but the government ought not to dictate to families how they raise their children. By limiting the choice of young families, the government is limiting how they decide to raise their families.
As far as the Kelowna accord is concerned, I have always been very supportive of the kinds of services we need for urban aboriginals, and as a matter of fact, I have a fairly large component of urban aboriginals in my own riding of Kitchener Centre, but it should not be done at the cost of the Kelowna accord. The accord was landmark and historic because we had aboriginal leaders sitting with first ministers and the Government of Canada to work out a long term framework that would address some of the very serious concerns we see on reserves. I think it is a false dichotomy to pit urban aboriginals against on reserve aboriginals.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am a bit disappointed that the last member who asked a question used up all the member's time, because I wanted to ask her a question. Perhaps we will do that some other time.
With regard to Bill C-13 and the budget, one matter stood out for me. To some degree it is a local matter, although it affects a number of communities across the country. It is a matter that was not addressed in spite of the long history of the Conservatives, and the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before them, in championing this issue of trying to attain some fairness and justice in the tax system. However, as soon as the Conservatives were in government, they seemed to forget about it. It is the issue of the manner in which we tax, in Canada, individual taxpayers who are receiving social security benefits from the United States.
This has been a longstanding issue. It goes back to 1996, at which point we entered into a treaty with the United States, saying that people who resided in Canada but received social security benefits from the United States would be taxed in Canada and the revenue from that would be collected in Canada. We would do the same thing with Canada pension benefits in the United States, that is, the United States would tax them, collect the revenue there and retain those funds. We had worked out a formula within the treaty, which in effect was to continue whatever the taxation rate was in those respective countries with regard to that income.
Immediately after that treaty was signed and we began to tax this in Canada, we in fact changed the formula. The way the formula worked in the United States was that because of the way money had been contributed to social security, the taxation of those revenues, that income, was to be on only 50% of the revenue.
Initially, the Liberal government--and to its eternal shame, because of some of the representations the Liberals made to the recipients of these funds--first taxed all the income, the full 100% of the income. The individual recipients began to lobby. They organized and they created associations, including a very strong one in my area of the country. They were able to get the government to move a little. Ultimately, in the 1997-98 period, the Liberals taxed on only 85% of the income. They reduced it by 15 points, but not down to what they should have, and that should have been to tax on only 50% of that revenue.
There have been a number of hearings on this, both in this chamber and in committee, and in the Senate. The groups of recipients who were opposed to this type of unfairness lobbied strongly, made representations and appeared before both houses, but they have been unsuccessful up to this point.
I wish to digress for a minute to speak about the impact this has had. One has to appreciate that for a large number of these recipients this is their total income. At the time this happened, of those who are receiving it now, for more than half of them it was their entire income. They had been living on that income. They had structured their finances accordingly. Suddenly they had this hugely increased tax burden. It was grossly unfair. They had lived their whole lives and had contributed to the social security in the United States with this program and scheme in place, which was completely legal. They planned their retirement and retired with that planning in place. Then, out of the blue, they were hit.
I have come across some horror stories. For example, one involved a member of my church, who has since passed away. Both he and his wife were receiving social security. They were still Canadian citizens. They returned to Canada and bought a house. They obtained not a large mortgage, but one they could afford with those incomes and that tax regime. When they both got hit with the increased taxation burden, they had to give up the house, something they had planned for through their entire lives. It had a devastating impact on them.
When I was campaigning in one of the elections, an elderly man told me about his brother, who had been forced to give up living independently because he had been hit the same way. For his whole life, he had planned for the way he was going to live his life. He had a small apartment and was living on his own. Because of the taxation burden he was forced to bear because of this new regime, he was forced to give up living independently in his apartment and move and share a room in his brother's house. This man said the only time his brother comes out of his room, and this had been going on for well over a year, is to come to meals and to go to the washroom. Other than that, he is embarrassed and depressed.
 Those stories are repeated over and over again. The really sad part about this is that the government knows full well what is happening. There were three private members' bills put forward. On two different occasions, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Calgary Southeast, put private members' bills before the House that in effect would have put those people back into the position they were in at the time the treaty was signed, when the Liberal government attacked them. He was a champion for them. This was picked up more recently by the member for Essex, again, a government member. He also had a private member's bill before the House in the last session.
Both of those members lobbied the government heavily.When the Conservatives became the government of the land, when they took power, what happened is pretty simple: absolutely nothing. There were no changes. This is a simple change. It does not even require legislation. Those private members' bills are not absolutely necessary under the legal regime we have in this country. This decision can be made at the cabinet level with one meeting. The government fully understands what it is necessary to do. It knows about the unfairness. It knows about the injustice for these people. 
One can only conclude that the government does not care about them, and in much the same way as the Liberal government before it, in a very cynical fashion. The government knows that the longer it draws this out, the more these individuals, who are in their later years, will pass away every year. The fight for fairness and justice keeps dwindling because they will become more elderly and there will be fewer of them. That cynicism is extremely regrettable. It does not bode well for the government or the two members who championed this, or at least allegedly championed it. We do not have the results we need, so the injustice and unfairness continue for literally thousands of people.
I want to make one final point on the subject. This is not a big ticket item. With all the tax breaks that were given in this budget, this would have been minuscule. When we look at the billions of dollars in tax breaks in this budget that went to major corporations, and international corporations in most cases, we can see that this would have been minuscule. That will continue now indefinitely. This size of tax break, which is really not a break at all but simply some justice for this group of taxpayers and citizens of this country, is a relatively small amount of money. The government is showing its inability to reflect any sense of fairness or justice for that group.
I know that my time is just about up, but I want to assure the recipients of this social security benefit that next week after the break I will be tabling a private member's bill, and this battle will continue. If the Conservative Party is not prepared to fight and get us justice and fairness, other members in the House are prepared to continue to fight for it.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, when I hear the government speak of EnerGuide and its high administration cost, I would say it is incredible, if not dubious, that it is including the assessment costs in that calculation. In fact, it would strike me that it seems to be doing this to meet a political goal. Would the member agree with that?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address that point, but I got so caught up in the other issue. It is such an issue of unfairness that I became sidetracked by the passion I feel about it.
I have been a long-time environmentalist. The EnerGuide program makes good sense in terms of environmental protection and it makes good economic sense as well. When I heard the announcements I could not help but think of what the Mike Harris government in Ontario did when it first took power. His government cut the same programs in Ontario in the same kind of timeframe. I was involved with one of the environmental groups that was deploying these services in the Windsor-Essex County area. The funds were cut completely over a very short period of time.
The government is misleading Canadians. The Minister of Natural Resources has said repeatedly, and we heard it again today from the parliamentary secretary that we are only getting 50¢ of every $1 in EnerGuide to the Canadian taxpayers. That is simply wrong. The government is not taking into account the assessments and the cost of those assessments. I am sure the governing party would be the last to suggest that this work should be done on a pro bono basis. That work is absolutely crucial. 
An individual is hired from the private sector to do an assessment. The individual looks at the electrical and heating sources as well as the structure of the home and then gives an overall recommendation as to how the energy efficiency of the residence could be improved. It does not need a lot of understanding; that is how the system works, but it costs money. Depending on the nature of the building, the cost runs from a minimum of $150 to $200 all the way up to $400 or $500 per assessment.
The government is saying those numbers should be on the administration side, that somehow the public service is gathering this money up. It is not at all. Every single penny of the money is in the private sector. It is going to private contractors and is benefiting the owners of the residences. The government is leading Canadians to believe that somehow they are not benefiting from it. 
The next stage in the process is to make the recommended improvements. A subsidy of up to $4,500 is available. But the second stage cannot be done unless the first stage has been done. 
We absolutely need to spend that money. It is going to benefit Canadians. As those assessments have been completely cut off because all of the money has been cut off, the second stage is not going to be initiated anywhere near the same level. It is all gone. The people who need that incentive are going to drop out. The impact is quite devastating.
If we are going to seriously deal with climate change problems, global warming problems, and carbon dioxide emissions, we have to do a lot of work by way of energy conservation. The only way we can conserve energy is to have this type of program, not just in residential buildings, but in commercial and industrial buildings as well. The government has completely cut the ground from under that program, and has done it in a very misleading way.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act.
I want to make a few constructive suggestions that I hope will help the government change some of its plans and focus some of its initiatives in ways that could help the Canadian public. I am sure they would receive widespread support in our House.
There are a couple of quite egregious shortcomings. One the government's move in its budgetary projections to stop the planned and successive reduction of the income tax burden on the poor and the middle class, particularly the poor. One of our primary jobs is to make sure that the least fortunate in our society are able to have as much money as possible in their pockets consistent with how much they make.
For example, someone who makes $20,000 a year is taxed about $1,800. That is not right. Eighteen hundred dollars is an awful lot of money for somebody who is making $20,000 a year. The government could have put in measures to address that. Instead it decreased the basic personal exemption, the amount of money that is tax free. It also increased the lowest tax bracket. The Liberals had reduced it to 15% from 16%. The government is going to increase it from 15% to 15.5% and then on to 16%.
Does that make sense? Is that beneficial to those who make the least amount of money? Almost every economist in the country says very clearly that this is not a wise move. The best thing to do is to make sure that people have the money in their pockets as opposed to giving the bits and pieces of so-called tax breaks which the government introduced.
For example, the $500 textbook tax break sounds good on the surface, but the question is whether it really puts $500 into the pockets of the students. The answer is no, because it is calculated by the lowest tax break. In effect they would not be receiving $500. They would be receiving 15.5% of $500, which is $155. That needs to be known. Similarly with the $1,000 tax break for working individuals, they would only receive $155 in their pockets, not $1,000.
There are some glaring omissions in the budget. Number one is health care. Health care is the number one issue for Canadians from coast to coast. With our aging population, demands on our public health care system are very high. When we were in government, the former prime minister negotiated a landmark deal with the provinces to put $42 billion into the hands of the provinces for the health care of Canadians. It is difficult to get the provinces on side collectively at any time, but we accomplished that and we put money behind it.
Money is not the entire solution, but I think all Canadians and indeed members of this House were clearly looking for some leadership and solutions on the part of the government on the most important issue affecting Canadians. Did we see it? We did not. The government needs to take leadership. It is more than money. There are other areas that can be worked on in health care. 
For example, why not bring together the provincial ministers of education and work to ensure that physical activity for children is part of the school curriculum from kindergarten right to grade 11 or 12? It is critically important to address the epidemic of childhood obesity, which we believe is going to shorten the lifespan of a generation of children. For the first time the longevity of Canadians will actually decline, we think as a result of the epidemic of childhood obesity.
Another way would be through the head start program. From Montreal, Quebec to Ypsilanti, Michigan the Y's head start program has had a good impact. There is also the work that our former MP, Claudette Bradshaw, did with respect to the head start program in Moncton, New Brunswick. That program should be integrated into an early learning program across the country. It strengthens the parent-child bond and has proven to have a profound impact upon an array of social issues, challenges such as teen pregnancies and youth crimes, issues that concern all of us.
There was a 50% to 60% reduction in youth crime with the introduction of a head start program for kids. The program works with parents and children to provide parents with good parenting skills and provide children with some basic knowledge in life skills. The savings are $7 for every $1 invested. A 25 year retrospective analysis was done on these programs around the world and the findings are consistent around the world. They will actually affect the very social challenges the government and indeed we in opposition are concerned about. They are pragmatic, affordable and doable. I urge the government to proceed in that way.
Turning to national defence, when we were in government we committed $13.7 billion over five years for our defence forces. All of us applaud and thank from the bottom of our hearts the hard work that has been done by the Canadian Forces not only here at home but also in Afghanistan. We thank them profoundly for what they are doing for us.
The Conservative government put in $1.1 billion over two years and $5 billion over five. That is a stark difference from the $13.7 billion that we committed over five years. Indeed in my one year as parliamentary secretary, our commitment over and beyond the base budget actually went to $1.1 billion for one year. I would ask the government to look at a more significant investment in the Canadian Forces.
I did not have a chance to speak during the recent debate on Afghanistan. I said to the government prior to that debate that we needed more than 36 hours' notice to make a decision on that which is arguably the most difficult and important decision any of us has to make, which concerns putting the lives of our troops in harm's way. We needed more than 36 hours, not because we are opposed to the mission, not because we do not support our troops, but because it is our moral responsibility to ask the questions that the troops and the Canadian public cannot ask on the mission's two year extension.
A case in point was that 12 hours after we heard that there was going to be a debate for six hours and then a vote, on the front page of the Globe and Mail there was a statement that NATO had requested that Canada take on the entire mission in Afghanistan. That is a very significant piece of information. We did not know about that until we read it in the Globe and Mail.
I said to the government that we needed a couple of weeks, not a long time, to get the information and briefings from national defence, foreign affairs and CIDA. We wanted to know the facts, to make sure that the conditions were there for the success of the mission for our troops. That is our responsibility. I would like answers to some questions.
First, in order for the success of our troops in Kandahar, the civil-military cooperation component, the CIMIC component, has to be there and completely funded. What are the plans for the CIMIC component? What moneys have been put into Kandahar? When I asked the Minister of International Cooperation she could not give me an answer.
The success of the CIMIC component is intimately entwined with the success of the mission. If I were a Canadian Forces member on the ground in Kandahar working my butt off in the interests of our country, putting my life on the line as they are doing for our country, I would want to make sure that the CIMIC component was there and fully funded. It is absolutely essential for the bottom line security conditions that are needed on the ground.
Second, how is the training going for the domestic security forces, the Afghan police and the army? Our exit strategy is predicated on the ability of the Afghan security forces to retain control over a reasonable part of their country so that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cannot take root again. That is the domestic interest in our being there. That is the end goal. I do not know how far we have got, but I simply want to have answers to those questions from the department officials.
 I have run out of time and I have a list of questions. They are questions based on fact. They are not political but they are questions that I feel it is my responsibility to ask and to get answers to.
I support our troops, as do the vast majority of members in the House. The members of my party firmly support our troops, but we want to receive the answers to our questions that are critically important for us to be able to look CF family members in the eye and answer their questions directly.
It is a real shame the government did not take it upon itself to give us that opportunity to have those questions answered and execute our responsibilities and duties in a fair and fulsome manner.
Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
People who have followed both his career and my career know that we used to be in the same party a few years ago. He started out as a Reformer in the Reform Party, became a member of the Canadian Alliance and then, ultimately, made the decision to cross the floor and become a Liberal and sit with the Liberal Party. Then he ultimately rose through the ranks of the Liberal Party to be the parliamentary secretary.
I have heard and even have a very sympathetic ear to his quest to try to produce a head start program for children, parents and families. He has been championing this for years. I can remember conversations he and I had back in the early days of the Reform Party of Canada. He crossed the floor so he could be more influential with the Liberal Party, when it was the government, yet he was completely ineffective in getting the program going.
Upon reflection, when he looks at the choice that he made, does he still believe he made the right choice, considering that he is still talking about this worthwhile program but it has never happened?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the government whip. We share a lot of interests in this issue. I appreciate the conversations that we had in the past on this. I look forward to the government, with his influence, implementing such a program.
 I did not leave my former party to be more effective. My former party left me. 
I will give the hon. member some examples of that because he came from the same roots as I did, reform. I can ask him some rhetorical questions. How can tolerate the cluttering of our tax system and the increases in taxes to the poor? How can he tolerate the undemocratic ways of his government, the muzzling of his ministers, the muzzling of his MPs and the thin legislative agenda on five points? Given his reform roots, surely he cannot condone the undemocratic measures which his government is putting in. Quite frankly, true Reformers would be rolling over in their graves to know what the current Conservative government is doing, which is not the Reform Party of old. In fact, it is violating some very basic principles on democratic reform, which the members who voted for the Conservative Party would find egregious.
On the head start program, we had an early learning child care program. The early learning program was not simply a place for children to be put in a room for six hours to eights a day. It was a place where children would get quality early learning, where a lot of the influences would occur and where parents would be involved.
As the member probably knows, because we come from the same province, the early learning program put forward by the former minister was an individual program per province. Flexibility was built into the program for every province. I spoke to our provincial counterparts in British Columbia and that was the quid pro quo for our success in signing on so many provinces. The early learning program we had was not simply a day care program; it did involve an early learning component.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak Bill C-13, the budget implementation act. The bill intends to provide the legislative framework for the budget that was introduced on May 10 to many cheers from this side of the House, but far fewer down at this end. 
Ultimately, it cannot be said enough that this is a budget of missed opportunity. After more than 12 years of broken promises from the Liberal government, this was an opportunity to reinvest in the priorities of Canadians. The only real multi-year plan in the budget is for corporate tax cuts. There is no multi-year commitment to child care, education, training or the environment.
The Liberals hid their broken promises behind claims of huge deficits long after the deficit was under control. The Conservatives are now ignoring the $8 billion surplus expected this year, not to mention the $83 billion surplus expected over the next five years.
These surpluses represent a massive fiscal capacity, a capacity to invest, an opportunity to invest. Instead the Prime Minister and the other members of the House chose to squander over $7 billion in corporate tax cuts. 
While we pay record prices at gas pumps as prices continually spike, the Conservatives chose to keep the subsidies to oil and gas companies. The people of my riding know that this is a budget of missed opportunity. My constituents see the loss of federal funding for the best start program, which raised hope and expectation for the people of my community that affordable, accessible, child care would soon be available.
At the same time, as less affordable accessible child care spaces are available, working families will see the elimination of the young child supplement and will see the promised $100 per month taxed down to very few real dollars. They see no real money to fight for the environment such as the Hamilton harbour after decades of industrial pollution. 
For Stelco and Dofasco workers, who have been through months and years of uncertainty, there are no changes to EI and no new retraining efforts that will help them as the industry continues restructuring and changing to meet the new challenges.
For students at McMaster University and the parents and families who support our youth getting a post-secondary education, the budget does not propose affordability. The Conservative's solution for the post-secondary crisis is an increased opportunity to acquire debt for education, but no investment to lower tuition fees or introduce grants.
Instead of the steps outlined in Bill C-13, we should be seeing a plan for child care that invests in children and their families. Seventy per cent of children under the age of six have a mother who is in the workplace. There are only enough regulated child care spaces for 15.5% of these children.
In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, the best start demo project area would have reached out to over 3,000 children and their families. Cancelling the child care agreements with the provinces amounts to a grab back of $3.6 billion in investment in our communities. Between 2005 and 2008, this was to represent an investment of over $93 million in our province alone.
What does the Conservative government budget cost the families of Ontario? It costs $30 million every year, $30 million that could have created spaces that are desperately needed, $30 million that would have been well spent on a partnership with the parents of Ontario's children.
Health care is the number one priority of Canadians, including the people of my community. It has been completely ignored. In the bill there is no investment to start a national pharmacare program, even though in a few short months our first ministers on health are expected to report back on the issue. In a recent series of mailings to my community, a large number of constituents wrote back to me asking for a national pharmacare program.
Points of OrderRob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first, let me give my apologies to the member. It is surely not my intention to interrupt his comments, and I will be pleased to yield the floor to him very quickly.
I am rising with regard to the point of order that was raised by the member Ottawa—Vanier and to the question posed by the House leader of the official opposition as to whether the Prime Minister should table a document that he used to respond to a question posed by the member for Laval—Les Îles during oral question period on May 17.
As you noted, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision that documents quoted are to be tabled, but there is also a provision that briefing notes prepared for ministers are not required to be tabled. If you review Hansard, it is evident that the Prime Minister did not quote, cite or refer to any document in his response. Citation 495(5) of Beauchesne's 6th edition states:
 To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate. 
The Prime Minister was using the document as a briefing note and as you noted, Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement to table briefing notes.
As the House leader for the official opposition noted, the document the Prime Minister was using was also a cabinet document. However, the authorities are clear. Citation 495(2) of Beauchesne's states:
 It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. 
I can attest that the tabling the document would be contrary to the public interest on the grounds that it is a confidence of cabinet, dealing directly with national security measures, and I am not prepared to release this document as it could compromise the safety of our soldiers.
Again, I offer my apologies to the hon. member for the New Democratic Party.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, first, it shows that the Minister of Transport does, indeed, need glasses, as he was sitting next to the Prime Minister at the time and he could not recognize that it was a cabinet document.
Nonetheless, I gather you had taken this matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and you told me earlier today that it was still there. I will wait for your ruling on this matter. As always, there is an inherent trust in your judgment.
Should your judgment, Mr. Speaker, be in accord with what the House leader has just said, then I hope this would be a lesson for the Prime Minister. To recite and to read from a document which he is then not prepared to table for whatever reason, if it may be judged valid, leaves the House somewhat in a perplexing situation. If the Prime Minister is quoting comments in response to questions from the House and we cannot have access to those documents, then there is a bit of a quandary there.
I am sure Mr. Speaker will find a way around that.
The Speaker: I know the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier always displays the patience of Job and will await the decision of the Chair on this matter in due course. In the meantime, I will continue to take the matter under advisement.
I thank the government House leader for the submissions he has made, which have clarified the matter somewhat, and the Chair will get back to the House in due course.
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who kindly permitted this interruption in his remarks, can resume his remarks. He has about six minutes remaining in the time allotted.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the apology.
Drug costs have doubled since 1985 and, after hospitals, are the second biggest category of health related costs in our country. 
Almost four years ago, Roy Romanow in his commission recommended catastrophic drug coverage as a start. Not only does Bill C-13 not make preparations for pharmacare generally, the government cannot even act on a four year old recommendation for catastrophic drug coverage.
In the budget there is no funding for home care, something many seniors and their families rely upon. There is no funding for the training of health professionals so that people at the Henderson, St. Josephs' and General Hospitals in Hamilton do not have to wait as long to see a doctor. 
The Conservative government could also have taken the opportunity to introduce measures to adjust seniors' pensions to help those seniors who have expressed concern to me about having to decide what to buy: hydro or food. However the government did not take that opportunity to invest. 
For the many seniors living on fixed incomes and in poverty in my community and across Canada, a 1% GST tax cut or an income tax cut that only applies to a higher tax bracket means very little. It likely will not even cover the increase in home heating oil or hydro costs this year.
 Not only will oil and gas companies get big tax cuts, they also continue to get the estimated $1.4 billion in subsidies; $1.4 billion for gas companies, but only $500 million in the budget to fight pollution. That is the same amount that the NDP put in its budget last year for low income housing energy retrofits, money for people with lower incomes to do renovations that would help green their homes, help them fight pollution and do their part. 
The budget cancels that NDP investment. The budget not only does not fight pollution, it is taking away the help the NDP wanted to provide to low income families for retrofit.
By opting out of Kyoto, the Conservatives think they can do better than the years of consensus building in the international community. They will make their own plan but they do not have a plan yet. It is not in the bill we are debating today. The government tells us that it is under development. Canadians have heard that story before. The Liberals promised a Kyoto plan for years. When they finally did introduce something, it did not even try to meet targets set at Kyoto in all areas.
The budget means pollution will go up. Just like the Liberals, the government has no plan to invest in what we need to do to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pollution.
We often hear governments, businesses and people talking about economic innovation, greening the economy or products. We do not have to be political scientists to know that the world is changing around us, and with those changes, particularly in the economic arena, come many new challenges. However it is worth stating that with those new challenges, challenges like those faced by steelworkers in my riding and people working in manufacturing industries across the country, come new opportunities. 
Manufacturing as a sector was mentioned at least 10 times in the preamble of the budget when it was presented in the House, mentioned because of the huge losses expected in the sector. Yet, in the Conservative budget plan, the only mention of the manufacturing sector is that it will be getting some of the proposed corporate income tax cuts that we see presented here in the bill.
If we can get in on the ground floor, we can become world leaders in these technologies, manufacturing processes and knowledge.
The Conservative budget does nothing for the manufacturing sector, even though the dollar is now hovering around the 90¢ mark.
However, these changes do not just happen overnight. We need more training and retraining opportunities. Training is the clearest example of how we can invest in working families to improve real life opportunities and to boost our dropping productivity rate. While there are some positive changes for training here in the bill, they are very limited and specific to apprentices and a small tax credit for trades people who buy their own tools. There is nothing for training and immigrant settlement programs even while more and more people are facing underemployment and lower paying jobs. 
Instead of a vision for an integrated training role in the 21st century and a strategy to get us there, the Conservative budget gave us a few ad hoc fragments but no strategy.
The budget also did not broaden the EI program. Even though all workers pay into EI, fewer than 40% of them qualify for support. The greatest percentage of those who do not qualify are women who are most often in the part time, lowest paying and least secure jobs.
In the 1990s, 75% of workers qualified for EI benefits. Now, only 38% of workers qualify for EI. This bill, this Conservative budget, does not change eligibility requirements or benefits, which is another lost opportunity.
I was pleased, however, to second a bill that was proposed to make some changes in the EI program. It was put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst a few weeks ago in the House and I commend him on his work in this area. 
Bill C-265 would modify the employment insurance program so that benefits can be calculated on the basis of the best 12 out of 52 weeks. The private member's bill will also see the eligibility requirement at 360 hours for all benefit recipients in Canada. With a $49 billion surplus in this program, it is long past the time for these changes.
This bill is equally disappointing when we look at post-secondary education. Instead of keeping the tuition lowering oriented funding of the NDP budget at $1 billion, this bill proposes to convert that funding into one time education infrastructure funding. When four out of ten university students are unable to graduate on time because they dropped courses to work, we all lose. When 70% of high school graduates want to go to college but cannot, and list finances as the main reason for not getting a further education, we are all losing. We are losing out on the increased contributions that these graduates could be providing communities like my home town of Hamilton and others across the country.
This Conservative budget does nothing to address the most pressing financial issue related to students: the need to reduce debt loads. This budget does provide a few positive changes, such as removing the income tax on bursaries and scholarships and textbook credits. If the government will not invest when it has billions in surplus and corporations are not reinvesting the breaks they get through tax cuts and subsidies, who will invest? 
That is why I stand with my NDP colleagues in opposition to this budget. It is a lost opportunity to invest and I do not believe it reflects what Canadians have asked us all to do in the House.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to reflect on a budget that did after the election precisely what was promised during the election. We promised we could cut the GST. Done. We promised we would deliver a $1,200 choice in child care allowance. Done. We promised we would take taxes off of educational scholarships. Done. We promised we would bring in a tax credit to help with the exorbitant costs of university textbooks. Done. 
We promised we would give a tax credit to help parents with the cost of putting their children in sports so they can keep their kids active, healthy and out of trouble. Done. We promised a tax credit, which the NDP once supported, for public transit, to encourage people to get out of their cars and into public transit in efforts to reduce traffic and pollution. Done.
We have gone further and faster to deliver to the people who elected us precisely what we promised them. Why will the member not rise in the House of Commons and say that while he may disagree with what we have done, at least he can admit that we have done what we said we would do?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have, without a doubt, done what they said they would do, but they have done it for 30% of the people who voted for them, excluding the 60% who did not. When one does not earn enough income to qualify for the tax breaks that are being offered, they are no good. The average students have been abandoned by the government because they will not even qualify for those tax breaks.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas my colleague talked about was his home town and how the men and women who work in the industrial sector have been affected. I would like his comments about the missed opportunities in this budget. 
As we in our party have said, we should not just oppose but propose. I would like his ideas on what was missed in the budget but also what we can do to help the men and women in the manufacturing sector who are having a hard time, particularly those in his riding.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the population in the manufacturing sector the one thing that will strike us very quickly is that the shade of the hair is very much like my own. It is an aging population. Many of the people who have seen their manufacturing jobs collapse on them, and there have been many in the area of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, are lost. The Levi plant left recently and hundreds of people lost their jobs. Other plants have also moved on.
There has to be training and retraining with a particular emphasis on the older worker who sometimes has a harder time readjusting to the new technologies and the new work of today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all the parties present this afternoon and I think if you seek it you could find unanimous consent to see the clock at 2:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I would seek clarity. I would think there needs to be one more vote taken, which we would agree to on division. and then we would certainly concur with the suggestion of the chief government whip. I would not want Canadians to think that we were seeing the clock as 1:30 on division but I want to be clear as to the vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The Chair is seeking clarification from the chief government whip. Is he seeking the consent of the House to the motion for second reading of Bill C-13?
Jay Hill:  Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
 It being 1:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2006 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.)